LKFS *and* -10dB ?
Old 20th January 2011
  #1
Lives for gear
 
nucelar's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
LKFS *and* -10dB ?

Hi all,
In order to normalize loudness in all their programming, a client has updated their audio delivery spec and included -23 LKFS as a requirement.
First of all, isn't the standard -24 LKFS? or -23 LUFS? But -23 LKFS?
On the other hand, the limit of -10 dBFS still stays in the spec.
In the context of a digital broadcasting chain, this upper limit has no sense and contradicts the whole loudness normalisation philosopy.
Of course the client is always right, but I feel they got it wrong...
your thoughts?
Cheers
Old 20th January 2011
  #2
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nucelar View Post
Hi all,
In order to normalize loudness in all their programming, a client has updated their audio delivery spec and included -23 LKFS as a requirement.
First of all, isn't the standard -24 LKFS? or -23 LUFS? But -23 LKFS?
On the other hand, the limit of -10 dBFS still stays in the spec.
In the context of a digital broadcasting chain, this upper limit has no sense and contradicts the whole loudness normalisation philosopy.
Of course the client is always right, but I feel they got it wrong...
your thoughts?
Cheers
Quote from the EBU Tech 3341 paper:
The EBU recommends the proposal on naming and units summarized here:
- A relative measurement, such as relative to a reference level, or a range: LK = xx.x LU

- An absolute measurement, LK = xx.x LUFS

- The "L" in "LK" indicates loudness level, the "K" indicates the frequency weighting used.

So, The EBU R 128 recommends -23 LUFS=0LU as target, with a true peak maximum at -1 dBFS.

Maybe -10 dBFS is a typo?
Old 20th January 2011
  #3
Gear nut
 
rfnoise's Avatar
 

LKFS and LUFS are the same thing at the moment. Both are measured as per ITU BS.1770-1, both use leq(rlb) weighting and pre-filtering. From EBU R128 document, "‘LUFS’ is equivalent to ‘LKFS’ (which is used in ITU-R BS.1770-1). An input document has been submitted to the ITU requesting it to change its nomenclature to ‘LUFS’ (which is compliant with international naming conventions)."

EBU has added a recommendation for gating (excluding from the total measurement) quiet sections of the mix (those areas that are 8LU lower than the overall loudness). Most loudness meters on the market (including LM100 and LM5D) do not currently include gating in the same way as the EBU has recommended, and there is practically no chance that a spec sheet with "LKFS" expects gating of any kind to be used.

I still see -10dbfs as maximum instantaneous peaks on some spec sheets. Sometimes it applies to all deliverables, sometimes only to a LoRo or LtRt mix, but I would NOT assume it is a typographical mistake.
Quote
1
Old 20th January 2011
  #4
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nucelar View Post
Hi all,
In order to normalize loudness in all their programming, a client has updated their audio delivery spec and included -23 LKFS as a requirement.
First of all, isn't the standard -24 LKFS? or -23 LUFS? But -23 LKFS?
On the other hand, the limit of -10 dBFS still stays in the spec.
In the context of a digital broadcasting chain, this upper limit has no sense and contradicts the whole loudness normalisation philosopy.
Of course the client is always right, but I feel they got it wrong...
your thoughts?
Cheers
I just finished a reality TV season that had the same loudness specs. I called the network to verify that it was correct and they assured me it was.

Randall
Old 20th January 2011
  #5
they want to hard deck cap it at -10 and keep the volume balanced at -23 for nominal levels... can you say "minimal dynamic range" ?

cheers
geo
Old 20th January 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 
nucelar's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
I don't think it's a typo either. It's just that they added that -23 LKFS spec to the existing document. I suspect that without further thinking about what this means.
@rfnoise: When you say LUFS, doesn't this automatically imply R128 (with gating?)


Anyways, thanks for the input
Old 20th January 2011
  #7
Lives for gear
 
danijel's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucelar View Post
Hi all,
In order to normalize loudness in all their programming, a client has updated their audio delivery spec and included -23 LKFS as a requirement.
I see you are in Barcelona. Are you working for a North American client, or is dialog normalization finally coming to Europe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
I just finished a reality TV season that had the same loudness specs.
Again, I'm interested if you are in North America, or somewhere else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia View Post
they want to hard deck cap it at -10 and keep the volume balanced at -23 for nominal levels... can you say "minimal dynamic range" ?
That is pretty much the norm in my area. There is no spec saying -23, but if you mix dialogue to -25, expect a phone call from the client.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nucelar View Post
I don't think it's a typo either. It's just that they added that -23 LKFS spec to the existing document. I suspect that without further thinking about what this means.
I was afraid of this. They will do what seems the easiest thing at the moment - ask for the new loudness metering, but keep the goddamn -10 peak.
Old 20th January 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
nucelar's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Yes, the network is North American, but the spec comes from its european subsidiary. In fact it's a preliminary document, audio deliveries won't fail QC yet because of this.
Here in Spain RTVE and other channels are seriously looking into this, but not enforcing it at this point.
Old 20th January 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
gsilbers's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia View Post
they want to hard deck cap it at -10 and keep the volume balanced at -23 for nominal levels... can you say "minimal dynamic range" ?

cheers
geo
yep. we do plenty of -10db and also stuff that goes to europe. i know a few networks in germany want this.
Old 20th January 2011
  #10
Gear nut
 
rfnoise's Avatar
 

Quote:
@rfnoise: When you say LUFS, doesn't this automatically imply R128 (with gating?)
Maybe it will eventually take on that much meaning, language is always evolving, but I don't think it implies gating any more than it implies -23 or -24 or whatever loudness target. We don't say "LUFS" when we mean "-23LUFS". Gating is not universally adopted, at least not yet. The term LKFS is kind of wrong anyway, there is no K weighting afaik (we start with RLB weighting) and it has nothing to do with Bab Katz K system, so I'm glad to see LUFS take its place.
Old 21st January 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 
pkautzsch's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfnoise View Post
there is no K weighting afaik (we start with RLB weighting) and it has nothing to do with Bab Katz K system, so I'm glad to see LUFS take its place.
This EBU paper uses the term "K-weighting" (which basically is RLB with a "pre-filter"):
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/t...ss_Camerer.pdf

Indeed this doesn't have anything to do with Bob Katz.
Old 21st January 2011
  #12
Lives for gear
 
danijel's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkautzsch View Post
This EBU paper uses the term "K-weighting" (which basically is RLB with a "pre-filter"):
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/t...ss_Camerer.pdf

Indeed this doesn't have anything to do with Bob Katz.
Good find, I'll add this to the 'levels' sticky.
Old 21st January 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
nucelar's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Yeah, that article sums it all up very nicely!
Old 21st January 2011
  #14
Gear nut
 
rfnoise's Avatar
 

You are right, I chose my words poorly. "K weighting" is indeed a term, right there in print in the ITU document (from 2007) I linked to earlier. It is TWO response weightings, one follows the other. The concatenation of the two is defined as "K weighting". However, LKFS measurement uses more than K weighting, there is yet another adjustment, an effective increase of the influence of the rear channels, so the LKFS result of a single channel will be different if a single front channel is used vs. a single rear channel. LKFS stands for Loudness, K weighted, relative to Full Scale. In my view, it is not a term as well chosen as LUFS (Loudness Unit relative to Full Scale). I hope that is readable. Anyway, you are right. It is that "K weighting" as it applies to LKFS is actually a two or three considerations at the same time, not a single definition, and that is why I tried to say it is not a finite variable.

The article you linked to is extremely recent. Nicely written. But, does it even mention the rear channels adjustment (which is a part of ITU-R BS.1770-1)? I only scanned, maybe I missed it.

edit: yes it does
Old 21st January 2011
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Fajita's Avatar
I have to mix -10 peak and -24LKFS. All day, every day. Sucks but I have to do it.
Old 22nd January 2011
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fajita View Post
I have to mix -10 peak and -24LKFS. All day, every day. Sucks but I have to do it.
Pretty common spec anymore.....

phil p
Old 7th February 2011
  #17
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by franzzappel View Post
Quote from the EBU Tech 3341 paper:
The EBU recommends the proposal on naming and units summarized here:
- A relative measurement, such as relative to a reference level, or a range: LK = xx.x LU

- An absolute measurement, LK = xx.x LUFS

- The "L" in "LK" indicates loudness level, the "K" indicates the frequency weighting used.

So, The EBU R 128 recommends -23 LUFS=0LU as target, with a true peak maximum at -1 dBFS.

Maybe -10 dBFS is a typo?
-10 dBFS is a common practice (usually it is -9, by definition), and it has some historical aspects. Even the EBU R128 definies overall loudnes at -23LKFS and TruePeak at -1dBFs, the practice in europe is still the -9dBFs peak but measured with a 10ms PPM, and not true peak meter! that will result approx -5dBFs if measured with TruePeak meter.
broadcasters insist on this -9 peak, because whenever they have an FM modulation in the chain, they need this extra headroom for the preemphasis.

on the other hand, this peak/loudness ratio of 12-13 dB is quite a healthy thing, it sounds fine
Old 8th February 2011
  #18
I just finished a mix with -23 LKFS deliveries for 5.1 and LtRt with -2dBTP in the Dolby E version and -23LKFS with -10dBFS for the "normal" stereo LtRt version.
The latter is ok, but of course I prefer the LtRt with the ceiling at -2dBTP, which sounds less restricted. I hope the -10dBFS ceiling will go away after we've lived some time with LKFS and LUFS...

Greetings,

Thierry
Old 8th February 2011
  #19
Gear Head
 

I've tryed something

I have an EBU mode Loudnes meter from NuGen Audio "VisLM",
that is a nice vst plugin.

I started to measure famous good sounding songs, and I Found that they are usually around -14LKFS when peaking at FullScale.
That means they will show -23 if peaking around -9.

a few example:

Dire Straits Sultans of Swing -14
Norah Jones Don't Know Why -12,8
Sinatra-Benett New York... -13
Doors Light my fire -11,8
Aretha Franklin Respect -8,9 (that's Loud!)
Brahms Symph. No4 Kleiber '81 -14
(same as dire straits, just the LRA range is wider ofcourse)
and something really hot:
RedHotChillyPeppers Californication -6,4 (that's FKN Loud)
Old 8th February 2011
  #20
Gear Head
 

and remember!

tha analogue 15 ips tape also had a peak to rms ratio about 14-15 dB!

funny isn't it?
Old 8th February 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Fajita's Avatar
we don't really measure music with that meter. It's more for overall program, for television broadcast. Radio is still the wild wild west.
Old 8th February 2011
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by doktorwolff View Post
I've tryed something

a few example:

Dire Straits Sultans of Swing -14
Norah Jones Don't Know Why -12,8
Sinatra-Benett New York... -13
Doors Light my fire -11,8
Aretha Franklin Respect -8,9 (that's Loud!)
Brahms Symph. No4 Kleiber '81 -14
(same as dire straits, just the LRA range is wider ofcourse)
and something really hot:
RedHotChillyPeppers Californication -6,4 (that's FKN Loud)

Although I do agree with Ray that Television/film has a completely different use of dynamics than pure music, I like your experiment and music taste :-)

It completely explains why I prefer to listen to older releases. I remember listening to Californication on headphones in the record store and although I liked the song, I hated the squished distorted mastering of that album. The last Peppers CD I like is "Blood Sugar Sex Magik".
Are you sure you're not measuring a "remastered" version of "Respect" ?
Another example of rising mixing/mastering wars I like to mention to people when talking about the loudness wars: I loved Sheryl Crow's "Tuesday Night Music Club", but her next album had a more pushed sound that I didn't like.

Still I vote for a -23LKFS with ceiling at -2dBTP (or I could live with the older -27LKFS with -10dBFS as a compromise :-)

Greetings,

Thierry
Old 8th February 2011
  #23
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thierryd View Post

Still I vote for a -23LKFS with ceiling at -2dBTP (or I could live with the older -27LKFS with -10dBFS as a compromise :-)

Greetings,

Thierry
Ok, that's an opinion of the purist,
than there is Oscar Peterson's Night Train for You, with it's -21,3 LKFS

In my Opinion a -12...18 LKFS or RMS below digital peak is a nice value,
I'v always mixed around this with a simple VU or RMS meter

Although this type of measurement is established for broadcast, i just want to point out that this numbers were quite common by nature and taste,
without this scientific and statistic tools.
Old 8th February 2011
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Fajita's Avatar
but nowadays, LOUDER IS BETTER!!!
Old 8th February 2011
  #25
Gear Head
 

times are changing....

as i mentioned i ve measured a few songs with start-stop integration

the 3rd movement of Brahms Symphonie No 4, Deutche Gramofon recording from 1981, Carlos Kleiber.
This classic recording shows -14 LKFS with an LRA of 21

a few weeks ago i've made the same symphonie for TV , ( i dont have LKFS meter in ob van, just VU and PPM)
now i ve measured the same 3rd movement, it shows -14 also
but with an LRA of 15.
Old 8th February 2011
  #26
Gear Head
 

Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fajita View Post
but nowadays, LOUDER IS BETTER!!!
maybe LKFS is FLKS?

Fuucking Loud K-weighted Sound
fuuck
Old 8th February 2011
  #27
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia View Post
they want to hard deck cap it at -10 and keep the volume balanced at -23 for nominal levels... can you say "minimal dynamic range" ?

cheers
geo
Yepp

it's a practical minimum....
maybe 9 is the absolute minimum
Old 8th February 2011
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thierryd View Post
....I vote for a -23LKFS with ceiling at -2dBTP (or I could live with the older -27LKFS with -10dBFS as a compromise....

I'm not familiar with the "TP" suffix used above -- I take it that refers to TruePeak. How does that differ (if at all) from the dBFS designation you also refer to, as in "-10dBFS as a compromise..."?

Is it just a matter of what value will be shown on a given meter, i.e. QPPM will give a different reading than a TruePeak meter?
Old 8th February 2011
  #29
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor View Post
I'm not familiar with the "TP" suffix used above -- I take it that refers to TruePeak. How does that differ (if at all) from the dBFS designation you also refer to, as in "-10dBFS as a compromise..."?

Is it just a matter of what value will be shown on a given meter, i.e. QPPM will give a different reading than a TruePeak meter?
a lot of difference
QPPM has an integration time of 10ms
the "digital peak" uses samples
the "true peak " uses oversampling

the difference between digital peak and true peak is not significant, 1-2 dB

but QPPM shows 4-5 dB lower than the digital meter.

this "-9dB" upper limit (in Europe) is (usually) definied with this 10ms PPM
Old 10th February 2011
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor View Post
I'm not familiar with the "TP" suffix used above -- I take it that refers to TruePeak. How does that differ (if at all) from the dBFS designation you also refer to, as in "-10dBFS as a compromise..."?

Is it just a matter of what value will be shown on a given meter, i.e. QPPM will give a different reading than a TruePeak meter?
I couldn't explain it better than Doktorwolff :-)
" -23LKFS with ceiling at -2dBTP (or I could live with the older -27LKFS with -10dBFS as a compromise"

so my "compromise" is about 2 dB less dynamic range than the -23LKFS with -2dBTP ceiling...

Wikipedia has a nice page on meters:
Peak programme meter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And lots of EBU reading starts here:
EBU TECHNICAL - Loudness

Greetings,

Thierry
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Black Belt / Mastering forum
26
BIGBANGBUZZ / Post Production forum!
29
kevin nowhow / Post Production forum!
7
pethenis / Post Production forum!
10
pethenis / Post Production forum!
4

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.