| dcollins wrote on Mon, 07 March 2005 00:22 |
| bobkatz wrote on Sat, 05 March 2005 03:46 |
I will apply corrective audio measures for the benefit of the sound and performance of the music and other sound which have been given to me to process, according to my ability and best judgment; I pledge not to do the sound harm or injustice, either through commission or omission of any act.
|
Obvious error #1, and why I thought you were kidding in the first place....
Music is subjective!
|
You sure can be a pain in the ass, DC; you would find shit under a plate on the dinner table because you want to be one. You ought to take the oath at its face value, which is a basic desire to help impart some ethics, values and collaboration amongst your fellow men.
This oath is both EVERYTHING and NOTHING. First it is NOTHING because nothing is defined---this is on purpose BECAUSE of the subjective nature of the very work we do. It should be obvious to your logic-impaired brain that the very subjectivity of the work we do imposed the language of the oath. Instead, you chose to criticise it by a) bringing up the OBVIOUS and b) not realizing the deeper meaning and intent.
NOTHING is defined---because the very work we do is subjective and variable. But at the same time the oath is EVERYTHING because it recognizes that there should be integrity and ethical purpose to our work. The oath asks all of us to speak up and not be silent when we feel we are "damaging" the sound in our own definition of "damage"; the oath covers the definition of "damage" as personal, yet also based on long-term experience and ear-training.
Have you ever "damaged" a piece of audio (in your definition of "damage") by the requests of a client? Have you not spoken up about it to the client or did you remain silent? Substitute your own term for the word "damage" if you don't like it, "smashed", "hypercompressed without sensitivity to the material", whatever you prefer.
One of the purpose of the oath is to urge us to speak up to the client and not remain silent when we feel that "damage" is being done to the material. Educating the client is part of the solution to the problem of bad mastering. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
-----
As for your remarks about the K-System, some people get it, some people understand its variability, and others, like you, get a thing up their ass because they think it's trying to limit you to some arbitrary series of numbers. Your cynicism should be replaced by a spirit of collaboration. I may like my cars red and you may like them blue, but the common ground is a system of defining what the colors are and how they work. Hundreds of engineers around the world seem to be getting it, kid.
| Quote: |
I think BK has a "hubris" that likes to claim absolutes for audio where none can really exist.....
|
Only if you try to twist my words into your own version of what you think they say. There is some very real learning that can come from knowledge of how monitor gains interrelate with peak to average ratios, and how calibrated monitor gains work, the basis for the K-System. The other day I watched a movie with an excellent rock recording used as part of the soundtrack. It was reproduced at a good level, about 83 dB average to my guess, and it had plenty of clean transients. Knowing the standard calibrated theatrical monitor gain, I could easily conclude that this had to be a special music mix for the large theatre. I didn't need any meters to tell me. So there is a lot more to this system than simply talking about arbitrary meter readings; it is a POWERFUL system that allows you to learn something about the music recording simply by observing the monitor attenuator and listening!
| Quote: |
From monitor "standards" to "I can hear the 92 from the 93" you present a doctrine of "If it's not K-something you can't possibly like it."
|
I've never said or implied that. I've talked about a scale of diminishing returns and it's illustrated in the honor roll. The only thing "absolute" about the system is the implication that "somewhere down there on the scale you will find something that you are not going to like." The point being that all responsible engineers realize that having a scale of measurement is the first way to help separate order from chaos. And I maintain that a situation where you can put in 10 different pop CDs made from 1980 through 2005 and they differ by as much as 14 dB in loudness is genuine CHAOS. Here are some quotes from the articles that you like to call "absolute":
"I hope that engineers will return to using compression as an esthetic device instead of trying to win the loudness race."
"The K-System can become the lingua franca of interchange within the industry, avoiding the current problem where different mix engineers work on parts of an album to different standards of loudness and compression."
"Even with slight deviations from the recommended practice, the music world will be far more consistent than the current chaos. Everyone should know the monitor gain they like to use."
"While practicing engineers may disagree as to the absolute point where the sound goes downhill, we all agree that point is definable."
I believe that point begins where the esthetic desires of the compression are overtaken by the loudness race, where the desire to "make it loud" next to another CD supercedes the esthetic requirements of the recording itself. Do you see any numbers there?
"This leads us to my K-System Proposal, a metering and monitoring standard that integrates the best concepts of the past with current knowledge in order to avoid the chaos of the last 20 years. It also develops a common language of levels, so that engineers can properly communicate."
So please quit with the b.s. and stop trying to put words in my mouth that I have not said or feelings that I have not expressed, feelings which have been echoed by so many of our colleagues in so many other manners on this very forum. Do you see the words "absolute requirement for an RMS" anywhere in this letter
?
And please don't try to pick a quote out of context from my article(s) that appears to contradict what I'm saying here, because the whole is greater than any part taken out of context. And your spirit of collaboration should be as large as your own hubris. Oh, excuse me, sorry, I wasn't being collaborative in that last sentence.
Once again, if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. In a world with no definitions, there is only chaos.
BK
