Using a Loudness Meter

[selig]

Btw, it's worth mentioning. Selig, your stories/info about NYC and your brother are very interesting and impressive You're lucky to have someone that close to you with this much knowledge and experience when it comes to broadcasting

I keep trying to interest him in doing something as an RE, but he's so busy lately it's been difficult. Hopefully one day!

[avasopht]

True to a point - you're assuming the volume is maxed already, and there's no further headroom left.

One other thing you're overlooking is the tradeoff - by brick wall limiting a mix you don't just "get" loudness. You also get artifacts. So it's not a free lunch - you don't just choose louder or softer, you also choose more distortion, less distortion etc.

You're also overlooking the other case volume knobs are designed for - turning DOWN the freaking loud tracks/commercials. You can ALWAYS turn the volume down, even in the cases you mention.

Oh for sure, but it all depends on what it is exactly you're listening to.

If it's that sort of hip hop for which distorted kicks and snares are part of the signature style then you sort of do get a free lunch. And of course there's a lot more going on than just brick wall limiting, which is why many bedroom producers tend to get awful masters when trying to be loud without understanding what's really being done by their idols.

That being said there is no one size fits all. When you are loudness challenged the gains (pun intended) far outweigh the costs. Otherwise focus solely on the desired sound, whether that involves some subtle distortion or warming.

[selig]

True to a point - you're assuming the volume is maxed already, and there's no further headroom left.

One other thing you're overlooking is the tradeoff - by brick wall limiting a mix you don't just "get" loudness. You also get artifacts. So it's not a free lunch - you don't just choose louder or softer, you also choose more distortion, less distortion etc.

You're also overlooking the other case volume knobs are designed for - turning DOWN the freaking loud tracks/commercials. You can ALWAYS turn the volume down, even in the cases you mention.

Oh for sure, but it all depends on what it is exactly you're listening to.

If it's that sort of hip hop for which distorted kicks and snares are part of the signature style then you sort of do get a free lunch. And of course there's a lot more going on than just brick wall limiting, which is why many bedroom producers tend to get awful masters when trying to be loud without understanding what's really being done by their idols.

That being said there is no one size fits all. When you are loudness challenged the gains (pun intended) far outweigh the costs. Otherwise focus solely on the desired sound, whether that involves some subtle distortion or warming.

But you've just made the point that the genre determines the "sound", not the loudness, right? My point is that loudness for the sake of loudness has consequences. I agree with your point that a signature style can be anything, including distortion.

I assert there is no longer such a thing as a "loudness challenged" mix, unless you believe the loudness wars are still worth fighting.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[normen]

Perhaps that is addressed with the "inter-sample limit" feature in Ozone?

Yeah, an inter-sample peak limiter would see the wave for what it (finally) is and act accordingly.

[avasopht]

But you've just made the point that the genre determines the "sound", not the loudness, right? My point is that loudness for the sake of loudness has consequences. I agree with your point that a signature style can be anything, including distortion.

I assert there is no longer such a thing as a "loudness challenged" mix, unless you believe the loudness wars are still worth fighting.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed. And by loudness challenged, I meant solely on the listening side.

[8cros]

But you've just made the point that the genre determines the "sound", not the loudness, right? My point is that loudness for the sake of loudness has consequences. I agree with your point that a signature style can be anything, including distortion.

I assert there is no longer such a thing as a "loudness challenged" mix, unless you believe the loudness wars are still worth fighting.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed. And by loudness challenged, I meant solely on the listening side.

I think the value is the dynamic range. The depth of velocity and percentage of the sustain in relation to the pauses. Also dekay distinctiveness. The release is less important, it is similar to the feedback. IMHO

[8cros]

Crest factor is not "talking" about anything. But I find it a better judge of loudness than peak or VU/RMS levels alone. I would defer to mastering engineers when I need to meet a professional standard (which to date has NEVER happened).

I don't know that "we" need anything. I will repeat that I share what works for me, rather than telling anyone what they need, which seems to be where you are headed with this?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sine has always the same value of VU/RMS.

And 100 Hz will vary between 2,000 hertz at 20 decibels. But to have one laudness.
And this is not the limit. So you are very mistaken. Twenty decibels is a huge difference. Very large, to further talk about the RMS general.

It could not be better or for you and for anyone. You just say what everyone knows. I previously thought in the same way as you. Therefore, you are not special.

When you ask the obvious questions, you force people to work for you.

But at the same time you touch on hot, difficult topics. People are very tense answering you. Because the development of Reason in a complex, advanced stage, it is a difficult period for all of us. All users laudness meters around difficult to exist, but you will easily tell personal stories here. Because you have the ban hammer.
You wonder why many people have attacked? Because you often answer the obvious questions. Taking space for effective information. And hard to read.
I'm not attacking you, I just love loud dramatic performances. With flowers and applause.

[8cros]

Do not even try to refute. Ladness made to measure noise.
And the Double bass with flute, will become for you a nightmare, and for all of your followers.

[normen]

Do you have like a friend or somebody who speaks english who could help you express yourself? I think you're doing yourself a disservice trying to argue in a foreign language you barely speak. The most clear part of your post was the image and nobody is refuting that. Why are you trying to refute that looking at the crest factor is a good way for Selig to reassure himself when mixing? Thats impossible because you are not in his head.

Anyway I doubt that Selig will have difficulties mixing a bass and flute because the way I know him he is listening instead of reading and would always go with what sounds better instead of what gives a better reading... As I said before, if using a LUFS or R128 meter is changing your mixes dramatically you've been mixing wrong, you didn't listen.

[8cros]

Do you have like a friend or somebody who speaks english who could help you express yourself? I think you're doing yourself a disservice trying to argue in a foreign language you barely speak. The most clear part of your post was the image and nobody is refuting that. Why are you trying to refute that looking at the crest factor is a good way for Selig to reassure himself when mixing? Thats impossible because you are not in his head.

Anyway I doubt that Selig will have difficulties mixing a bass and flute because the way I know him he is listening instead of reading and would always go with what sounds better instead of what gives a better reading... As I said before, if using a LUFS or R128 meter is changing your mixes dramatically you've been mixing wrong, you didn't listen.

Really, you can not use the meter?
So what are we talking about?

[normen]

However, you can not use the meter?
So what are we talking about?

I am fine with a peak meter and possibly a reference track, yes. We are talking about what the different meters mean, how they are relevant and ultimately about how you shouldn't make your sound dependent on some meter reading (anymore).

[8cros]

However, you can not use the meter?
So what are we talking about?

I am fine with a peak meter and possibly a reference track, yes. We are talking about what the different meters mean, how they are relevant and ultimately about how you shouldn't make your sound dependent on some meter reading.

You'll come away from the topic.
Re: Using a Loudness Meter

[normen]

You'll come away from the topic.
Re: Using a Loudness Meter

Well when I'm reading your posts I get the impression your topic is "how to refute anything selig says".... You say few about "how to use a loudness meter".

And actually no, we're not going off topic - the answer is "don't care too much about what it says, make your stuff sound good instead".

[8cros]

You'll come away from the topic.
Re: Using a Loudness Meter

Well when I'm reading your posts I get the impression your topic is "how to refute anything selig says".... You say few about "how to use a loudness meter".

And actually no, we're not going off topic - the answer is "don't care too much about what it says, make your stuff sound good instead".

I do not care who the person with whom I speak. I did not meet Selig in other topics. And recently we were together against ProTools and Riverman.

I can not use loudnes meter, after calibration of my speakers.
Not everyone has high-end monitors and system settings.
Do not forget about it. Especially for beginners.

[normen]

I do not care who the person with whom I speak.

I can not use laudnes meter, after calibration of my speakers.
Not everyone has high-end monitors and system settings.
Do not forget about it. Especially for beginners.

You do not care... Right, thats why you start to talk about Selig in totally unrelated threads like the article one...

And you can not use a loudness meter (and btw its lOudness, not "lAudness") after calibrating your speakers... I don't know how to make sense of that sentence, sorry.

If you don't have a proper listening setup you should anyway concentrate more on getting your SONG right and not look so much at sound, crest factor, loudness or anything like that. "Flying blind" only according to instruments / meters won't do much for you in that case anyway.

[8cros]

I do not care who the person with whom I speak.

I can not use laudnes meter, after calibration of my speakers.
Not everyone has high-end monitors and system settings.
Do not forget about it. Especially for beginners.

You do not care... Right, thats why you start to talk about Selig in totally unrelated threads like the article one...

And you can not use a loudness meter (and btw its lOudness, not "lAudness") after calibrating your speakers... I don't know how to make sense of that sentence, sorry.

If you don't have a proper listening setup you should anyway concentrate more on getting your SONG right and not look so much at sound, crest factor, loudness or anything like that. "Flying blind" only according to instruments / meters won't do much for you in that case anyway.

I do not care what thinks Selig. I do not want to now this has been a big topic is closed.
When completed the arguments begin the transition to the spelling.
I'm in a hurry, because I'm used to enter characters with the mouse. And I make mistakes.

But if the topic is closed I will know who is to blame - the one who does not use meters, but still actively participates and arguing.

[normen]

But if the topic is closed I will know who is to blame - the one who does not use meters, but still actively participates and arguing.

Well you were constantly making that spelling mistake so I really thought you didn't know how to write it, sorry - just trying to help as you're debating this topic all the time, would be kind of embarrassing to spell it wrong then.

And I very well know how meters work, its my job anyway.

So, care to explain what "I cannot use a loudness meter because I calibrated my speakers" is supposed to mean?

[selig]

I do not care who the person with whom I speak.

I can not use laudnes meter, after calibration of my speakers.
Not everyone has high-end monitors and system settings.
Do not forget about it. Especially for beginners.

You do not care... Right, thats why you start to talk about Selig in totally unrelated threads like the article one...

And you can not use a loudness meter (and btw its lOudness, not "lAudness") after calibrating your speakers... I don't know how to make sense of that sentence, sorry.

If you don't have a proper listening setup you should anyway concentrate more on getting your SONG right and not look so much at sound, crest factor, loudness or anything like that. "Flying blind" only according to instruments / meters won't do much for you in that case anyway.

I do not care what thinks Selig. I do not want to now this has been a big topic is closed.
When completed the arguments begin the transition to the spelling.
I'm in a hurry, because I'm used to enter characters with the mouse. And I make mistakes.

But if the topic is closed I will know who is to blame - the one who does not use meters, but still actively participates and arguing.

Oh my…
I DO use meters - if you can't even know that much after following this thread you are either unable to understand or intentionally mis-representing my point. Why do you care so much what I think anyway?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[8cros]

But if the topic is closed I will know who is to blame - the one who does not use meters, but still actively participates and arguing.

Well you were constantly making that spelling mistake so I really thought you didn't know how to write it, sorry - just trying to help as you're debating this topic all the time, would be kind of embarrassing to spell it wrong then.

And I very well know how meters work, its my job anyway.

So, care to explain what "I cannot use a loudness meter because I calibrated my speakers" is supposed to mean?

I experimenter. This is my author's method. I do not use monitors.

The basis of this method, two things:
1. Comfortable frequency curve.
2. "K" weighting curve. inversion
The method consists in EQ 1 = 2.
It's very simple. But it was a secret.
This allows me not to use the measurement.

[normen]

Oh my…
I DO use meters - if you can't even know that much after following this thread you are either unable to understand or intentionally mis-representing my point. Why do you care so much what I think anyway?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hah, I think this time he meant me because I said I'd be fine with a peak meter and a reference track when it comes down to it Skins are wearing thin around here I suppose - maybe we all take a step back now, I guess all is said in respect to this topic. So no more additions about personal preference, no more making things more specific and no more hard to understand essays about tangential topics

[normen]

I experimenter. This is my author's method. I do not use monitors.

The basis of this method, two things:
1. Comfortable frequency curve.
2. "K" weighting curve. inversion
The method consists in EQ 1 = 2.
It's very simple. But it was a secret.
This allows me not to use the measurement.

o_O Well from what you said now it sounds like you don't use speakers at all and just read some meters? That can't be right so I guess I am completely misunderstanding you in most other cases as well - so I'll drop out because of communication breakdown.. This doesn't lead anywhere.

[8cros]

Oh my…
I DO use meters - if you can't even know that much after following this thread you are either unable to understand or intentionally mis-representing my point. Why do you care so much what I think anyway?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hah, I think this time he meant me because I said I'd be fine with a peak meter and a reference track when it comes down to it Skins are wearing thin around here I suppose - maybe we all take a step back now, I guess all is said in respect to this topic. So no more additions about personal preference, no more making things more specific and no more hard to understand essays about tangential topics

Yes, I am very tired existentially. And sometimes Google Translator joking with me.

[selig]

Oh my…
I DO use meters - if you can't even know that much after following this thread you are either unable to understand or intentionally mis-representing my point. Why do you care so much what I think anyway?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hah, I think this time he meant me because I said I'd be fine with a peak meter and a reference track when it comes down to it Skins are wearing thin around here I suppose - maybe we all take a step back now, I guess all is said in respect to this topic. So no more additions about personal preference, no more making things more specific and no more hard to understand essays about tangential topics

OK, so we BOTH use meters and therefore it cannot be either of us - who IS he talking about then?

If we stop talking about all the things you mention above, what's left?

I feel it's perfectly acceptable to speak about other ways of estimating loudness in a thread about using loudness meters, just like it's OK to talk about using natural spaces in a thread about digital reverbs, or talk about using real pianos in a thread about sampled pianos, or vise versa. If I was talking about using VU + Peak mode (crest factor) to estimate loudness, and someone brought up 1770 standards I would still be interested in hearing what they have to say.

Continue painting with a broad brush, it's all on topic as far as I'm concerned. Especially as it keeps coming back to the OT, which ties it all together. Sure, it's a slightly "messy" approach, but it's a messy subject IMO.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[8cros]

Discount on Red Rock up to 31 numbers.

[8cros]

I can add that laudness, pushed me to use isotope often.
Not only on the master.
I do the gate G8 method on each track, by using the isotope. And I can see the difference.
I started doing less rigid compression.

Why do you only start to hear something when you read a meter? You should hear how good or bad your mix is without that.

All the good mastering engineers didn't push their masters to extremes because they didn't hear how it was bad for the audio quality, it was because their clients said they wanted it to sound as loud as X.

I think that the message has been edited.
Because I posted quite a different. There was a question of "Can I do a demonstration".

Now here's a question for the meter.
Answer. I can do differently, if you want. And not only in a certain way.
I do as I want.

Producers - losers. Whoever they are. Once dependent on the client. We hear the best, only artifacts.


Here are two tracks. 4 channel mixer.
All measured flower meters perceived mode (E.B.U. loudness). +- 1dB.

The first track using tape scream 4 on each channel to the level loudness gate = 8.
On the master tape screaming loudness gate = 8.

Export 24-192000 conversion to mp3 was made in adobe audition, normalization and re-export to allihoopa.

Here are all the data.
1.
Left Right
Peak Amplitude: -0,12 dB -0,14 dB
True Peak Amplitude: -0,09 dBTP -0,10 dBTP
Maximum Sample Value: 32324,61 32262,00
Minimum Sample Value: -32290,90 -31182,74
Possibly Clipped Samples: 0 0
Total RMS Amplitude: -9,46 dB -9,49 dB
Maximum RMS Amplitude: -4,75 dB -4,75 dB
Minimum RMS Amplitude: -18,59 dB -16,06 dB
Average RMS Amplitude: -9,84 dB -9,88 dB
DC Offset: -1,22 % -0,59 %
Measured Bit Depth: 32 32
Dynamic Range: 13,85 dB 11,30 dB
Dynamic Range Used: 9,40 dB 9,15 dB
Loudness: -7,86 dB -8,55 dB
Perceived Loudness: -5,87 dB -6,46 dB
ITU-R BS.1770-2 Loudness: -7,56 LUFS

0dB = FS Square Wave
Using RMS Window of 50,00 ms
Account for DC = true
2.
Left Right
Peak Amplitude: 0,26 dB 0,23 dB
True Peak Amplitude: 0,34 dBTP 0,34 dBTP
Maximum Sample Value: 33703,62 33558,79
Minimum Sample Value: -33779,43 -33654,66
Possibly Clipped Samples: 125 129
Total RMS Amplitude: -10,26 dB -10,30 dB
Maximum RMS Amplitude: -5,48 dB -5,35 dB
Minimum RMS Amplitude: -22,80 dB -21,10 dB
Average RMS Amplitude: -11,04 dB -11,08 dB
DC Offset: -0,03 % -0,05 %
Measured Bit Depth: 32 32
Dynamic Range: 17,32 dB 15,75 dB
Dynamic Range Used: 13,65 dB 13,00 dB
Loudness: -7,87 dB -7,93 dB
Perceived Loudness: -6,46 dB -6,30 dB
ITU-R BS.1770-2 Loudness: -7,89 LUFS

0dB = FS Square Wave
Using RMS Window of 50,00 ms
Account for DC = true



The second track. Just ozone to master. IRC 1 fast.

Which is better, screaming or ozone?

Scream has a bit of options 1 and 2.

And ozone is an artifact on the timing.
0: 0: 0: 330