|
|
Post by RealNoob on Dec 28, 2019 10:32:22 GMT -6
Hi gang,
Are you mixing using the K system and are you choosing 14 or 20? Why did you choose one over the other?
I have a series of live albums to mix and am trying to educate myself in between them and adapt to good and new-to-me tools/skills. I am at Katz's site and researching elsewhere.
So, if you setup and calibrate for K20 or K14, I assume you calibrate at a fader level (on monitor controller) that leaves you some extra for jamming with clients? What do you do?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Dec 28, 2019 10:42:53 GMT -6
I use K-Meter and K-14. www.meterplugs.com/kmeter...I dunno, I calibrate my main monitors using my Radio Shack meter and never think about it again. |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Dec 28, 2019 10:54:44 GMT -6
TBH, I never understood why one would need the K System for mixing. It's for setting loudness vs dynamics of the whole mix, thus it seems to be more of a mastering tool. If you're self-mastering then I can see using it. But you state you're planning to work with a ME, so... ?
|
|
|
|
Post by RealNoob on Dec 28, 2019 11:26:48 GMT -6
TBH, I never understood why one would need the K System for mixing. It's for setting loudness vs dynamics of the whole mix, thus it seems to be more of a mastering tool. If you're self-mastering then I can see using it. But you state you're planning to work with a ME, so... ? Interesting. What I have read suggests mixing at K20 for delivery to mastering and mastering polishing to K14 or K12 if heavy rock or w/e. Of course, I don't completely understand the benefit of delivering K20 to the ME. |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Dec 28, 2019 11:39:17 GMT -6
TBH, I never understood why one would need the K System for mixing. It's for setting loudness vs dynamics of the whole mix, thus it seems to be more of a mastering tool. If you're self-mastering then I can see using it. But you state you're planning to work with a ME, so... ? Interesting. What I have read suggests mixing at K20 for delivery to mastering and mastering polishing to K14 or K12 if heavy rock or w/e. Of course, I don't completely understand the benefit of delivering K20 to the ME. Sure, K20 will be fine for sending to a ME, but IMO it's unnecessary. Overkill. Really all that matters to a ME is that there's no clipping or brickwall limiter on the mix. It's easy for a ME to control the level going into his mastering chain, and he may still need to do that even with K20 mixes delivered. |
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Dec 28, 2019 11:40:33 GMT -6
I tried working with it but eventually just gave up. I got too hung up on what the meter said and not on what it sounded like. granted, 99% of my stuff goes to a ME for final level and slight EQ moves. I find the loudness meters to be more helpful when I do some self mastering. I have a ton of plugin meters. That Youlean loudness meter is always easiest to work with. Why? I don't know, but I tend to grab that, even if I start with something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Dec 28, 2019 12:15:18 GMT -6
When mixing I always monitor at many different loudnesses because I can hear balances differently, so a calibrated monitoring level like the K System would be useless to me for mixing.
When mastering and judging loudness vs dynamics by ear - that's when a set monitor level is useful. But I set that myself years before the K System came out just by listening to mastered music and noting the sweet spot on my monitor controller. 'Haven't felt the need to check if it agrees with the K System...
|
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Dec 28, 2019 12:31:54 GMT -6
I mostly use K Meter to set the top volume for listening (82db I think?) and to make sure both sets of monitors are set at the same spot on the controller, and then match the headphones and mono monitor across the room by ear (using Metric Halo's Monitor controller). For loudness and dynamic reference, I use selections that mean something to me from Katz's list of reference LPs and note where they fall in how he schemes things out. It's all pretty vague and nebulous to me, but I feel like it gives me a place to toss my anchor - even if I'm still floating around, I'm not drifting out to sea. As long as my tracks can sit in a playlist with stuff in the genre I write in, I'm good. I master it myself and never exceed -14lufts or whatever that's called using Fab L2.
|
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Dec 28, 2019 12:39:22 GMT -6
... I master it myself and never exceed -14lufts or whatever that's called using Fab L2. -14 LUFS. I bet you rarely if ever need any gain reduction from the Pro-L2 to get that level. What's your genre? |
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Dec 28, 2019 13:21:28 GMT -6
I don't see any pop masters being -14LUFS. Most of what I see in my tests have been -7LUFS. Some have even been -6LUFS, but I could hear the mix collapse a bit at that level. This was measuring the loudest section of the song, not san average over the entire song.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Dec 28, 2019 13:41:20 GMT -6
I mix with a calibrated monitor level. Easy and it just works. Look up a Sound on Sound article on it, it’s pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Dec 28, 2019 13:42:34 GMT -6
... I master it myself and never exceed -14lufts or whatever that's called using Fab L2. -14 LUFS. I bet you rarely if ever need any gain reduction from the Pro-L2 to get that level. What's your genre? Americana/folk. I mix it to around -17, then kiss it with the OCL/2 and than the L2. It shaves a few, depending on what I'm up to (dense project, spare project, etc.) but generally not much. |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Dec 28, 2019 13:57:38 GMT -6
I don't see any pop masters being -14LUFS. Most of what I see in my tests have been -7LUFS. Some have even been -6LUFS, but I could hear the mix collapse a bit at that level. This was measuring the loudest section of the song, not san average over the entire song. Yes, -7 to -6 short term LUFS (during the loud sections) is common. And you're right that the louder end of that range is often the level where things get ugly. In many cases a track with a -7 short term LUFS will be -9 to -10 integrated LUFS (average). Very few major releases are in the -14 integrated LUFS zone. |
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Dec 28, 2019 14:08:59 GMT -6
I'm talking intergrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Dec 28, 2019 14:26:26 GMT -6
I'm definitely not a mastering engineer, but I can't understand the point of long term LUFS. A lot of stuff I work on has a huge dynamic range throughout the song. The long term may say its very soft but the loud parts are where I do the checking. I suppose everyone has a system. If it works for you, that's great. I don't have a good process for mastering. I try not to care too much about level when mixing, as long as it fits with my averages. I'd love to take some courses on mastering. I'm not at all sure my hearing is good enough anymore but it would be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Dec 28, 2019 15:35:55 GMT -6
I'm definitely not a mastering engineer, but I can't understand the point of long term LUFS. A lot of stuff I work on has a huge dynamic range throughout the song. The long term may say its very soft but the loud parts are where I do the checking. I suppose everyone has a system. If it works for you, that's great. I don't have a good process for mastering. I try not to care too much about level when mixing, as long as it fits with my averages. I'd love to take some courses on mastering. I'm not at all sure my hearing is good enough anymore but it would be fun. Dunno, haven't really thought about to deeply, just seemed to make more sense to me to monitor the average. I try to keep my buss level consistent when mixing so I'm not constantly adjusting the 2 buss comp as I switch from song to song. I looked at my last project, my song target (the song I picked to hang in a playlist I liked) was -12lufs integrated then I adjusted by ear each other song so they would both hang in that playlist and be cohesive as a collection with the other songs of the project. I do remember liking the -14lufs more, felt less...constricted or maybe just easier to achieve. <shrug> Lately I've had Chris Whitley's "Perfect Day" on loop. Brilliant piece of work. Demands you listen. Would suck if it was mastered "loud." |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Dec 28, 2019 17:26:12 GMT -6
I'm definitely not a mastering engineer, but I can't understand the point of long term LUFS. A lot of stuff I work on has a huge dynamic range throughout the song. The long term may say its very soft but the loud parts are where I do the checking. I'm with you - "long term" or integrated LUFS doesn't often tell me anything I care to know. Short term LUFS in the loud parts is what I use along with RMS. But Integrated LUFS (or similar) is what streaming sites use in their loudness normalization so it's something to be aware of... |
|
