ITB meters for loudness

[soundsundergroun]

What do you guys use for loudness metering in the box?

I have the Waves PAZ stuff, but it seems useless for this task.

Please don't say your ears.

[Waltz Mastering]

The PAZ meters will read "rms" and "peak" levels, which should be what your looking for.

TW

[mercurydime]

the ssl x-ism is a good plug for this...and it's free. it will allow you to see if there is any inter-sample clipping going on...

i also like the sonalksis free-g. that's a handy plug that measures peak and rms...

i guess those waves durrough meters are pretty cool, too. you might even be able to get them for a $1 down, $1 per week!

[smoke]

I like to have Ozone open along with UAD Precision Limiter in bypass, monitoring under K12.

Ozone has Peak and RMS options, as well as a few nice release timing options. You can set the average reading to very slow to get an idea of the overall level.

[Whitecat]

PPMulator+, Audiofile Engineering's Spectre and RNDigital's InspectorXL.

X-ism or TL MasterMeter for intersample peaks if necessary, but I HATE to be doing stuff where that should even be an issue.

[MASSIVE Master]

Please don't say your ears.

Sorry -- Your ears. Calibrate your monitoring chain properly and you'll find that meters turn into little more than visual distraction.

[Franco]

I use my ears first, then InspectorXL (highly tweakable meter, that one). I've considered stepping up to the Penguin but to be honest, I rather rely on my ears and not spend more dough on meters.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

Calibrate your monitoring chain properly and you'll find that meters turn into little more than visual distraction.

thumbsup

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by soundsundergroun

What do you guys use for loudness metering in the box?

I have the Waves PAZ stuff, but it seems useless for this task.

Please don't say your ears.

Sonoris Meter does a nice job for this featuring average measurements for both Leq-A and RMS - Meter - Sonoris Audio Engineering

Out of the box the Logitek stuff offers a nice alternative to Dorrough. Logitek Electronic Systems, Inc.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Tarekith]

Inspector XL

[audio ergo sum]

You can't measure loudness.

[MIKEHARRIS]

Look at the Dolby Media Meter

Dolby - Dolby Media Meter Overview - Professional Software Tool for Measuring Loudness in Programming

You friendly Dolby dealer can arrange for a free demo

[fader8]

Originally Posted by MIKEHARRIS

Look at the Dolby Media Meter

Dolby - Dolby Media Meter Overview - Professional Software Tool for Measuring Loudness in Programming

You friendly Dolby dealer can arrange for a free demo

Hey Mike,
I'm not convinced that ITU-R BS.1770-1 has a lot of relevance for music mastering engineers. Much of this standard is derived from IEEE telephony standards for objective loudness ratings. As such, it's practical value is more relevant to dialog than music. Not that it can't provide helpful insight, but I don't think it's a "perfect solution" for music mastering. Just as LeqA isn't really either. OTOH, either can be useful when making process changes to a particular piece of music ie as a relative reference. But that only means anything if you understand exactly what these measurements are telling you. You gotta ask yourself, "Is it worth it"?

[MIKEHARRIS]

Originally Posted by fader8

Hey Mike,
I'm not convinced that ITU-R BS.1770-1 has a lot of relevance for music mastering engineers. Much of this standard is derived from IEEE telephony standards for objective loudness ratings. As such, it's practical value is more relevant to dialog than music. Not that it can't provide helpful insight, but I don't think it's a "perfect solution" for music mastering. Just as LeqA isn't really either. OTOH, either can be useful when making process changes to a particular piece of music ie as a relative reference. But that only means anything if you understand exactly what these measurements are telling you. You gotta ask yourself, "Is it worth it"?

Indeed its up to the engineer to extrapolate the relevant information...a free demo can let you decide its relevance...or not

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by MIKEHARRIS

Look at the Dolby Media Meter

Dolby - Dolby Media Meter Overview - Professional Software Tool for Measuring Loudness in Programming

You friendly Dolby dealer can arrange for a free demo

You can't measure loudness.
It is a perceptual term.
And if you can't measure it you can't have a meter for it either.

[MIKEHARRIS]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

You can't measure loudness.
It is a perceptual term.
And if you can't measure it you can't have a meter for it either.

another product from Dolby that measures loudness

Dolby - Dolby LM100 Broadcast Loudness Meter

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

You can't measure loudness.
It is a perceptual term.
And if you can't measure it you can't have a meter for it either.

Why can't you measure loudness? One part you can't measure is the "surprise factor", that after 10 minutes of silence, the onset of program always seems louder than after you've been listening for five minutes. Another part that's hard to measure is that different loudspeakers/rooms with different freuquency response may sound a little louder or softer than the electrical measurement predicts.

Another part that's IMPOSSIBLE to meaure is the esthetic choice that says that a ballad must be played softer than a rock piece. That they should not all be the same loudness.

But all this is quantifiable, eventually. Never underestimate the power of artificial intelligence some years into the future.

BS.1770 gets closer than anything previous. They're still working out the dynamics for a real time loudness meter but already the meter is useful. When will the loudness meter be within 1 dB of the ear/brain and prove useful to engineers trying to quantify program material getting ready for broadcast? It's already useful now. So my answer is: YES, you CAN now measure LOUDNESS, with the above caveats.

Take a look at TC's RADAR display, now available I believe for Pro Tools. Now there's a meter!

BK

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by bob katz

... So my answer is: YES, you CAN now measure LOUDNESS, with the above caveats.
...

Even in the Matrix all the brains are different. And as long as the brains are not identical every individual perceives loudness differently.

You can't measure loudness.

You can come close, you can develop fancy indicators for it, that approximate it with other variables fixed as a prerequisite.

But you can't measure it and you can't build meters for it.

In the morning we perceive it differently than in the evening. After hours in loud environments we perceive it differently than after a week in the desert. When we turn our head we perceive it differently while the loudness "meter" stays the same...

Philosophically speaking: Loudness is an idea about level.

So you can't measure it.
Logic dictates that it is impossible.

We have phon and sone and weighting curves to approximate level measurements to actual loudness. But still these are all level measurements.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by MIKEHARRIS

another product from Dolby that measures loudness

Dolby - Dolby LM100 Broadcast Loudness Meter

"...measuring the subjective loudness..."

an oxymoron, isn't it?

[Waltz Mastering]

Does anyone make a SPL meter as a plug in?

Course you'd need a mic.

TW

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Philosophically speaking: Loudness is an idea about level.

So you can't measure it.
Logic dictates that it is impossible.

Then ultimately you've made an academic argument. We're not arguing the philospohy here, you make sense in that regard.*

Unless you are also saying that "all attempts to make a useful meter that approximates the human perception of loudness are entirely invalid and make no sense whatsoever".

Which I disagree with :-). What counts are the PRACTICAL (not philosophical) implications of the use of such meters. I'm particularly interested in whether the TC Radar meter can make a difference in the hands of semi-skilled engineers producing program material for radio/TV. The other night I watched FX network on my Dolby AC3-equipped surround system in the bedroom. The movie was exceptionally well reproduced, dialogue was clean and natural, effects were "banging", it was amazing. Probably an accident. Then the commercials came on and they were painful, at least 10 dB louder than the movie. It was very annoying, good thing I have a remote volume control. All this makes sense how it happens. But in my world, the movie should have been left alone (uncompressed) and the commercials turned down. Isn't it worthwhile to start searching for some intelligent software and metering that will help us get to this goal, instead of compressing the bejezus out of the movie and the commercials and making everything suck?

BK


*P.S. How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?

[wado1942]

You know, I just use my monitor gain as a basis for loudness. Once and a while, I'll bust out my SPL meter. I also made a set of VU meters that can plug into any line-level output to help me get an understanding of where energy is. But I hardly do that anymore since I got my monitors calibrated better.

[MIKEHARRIS]

In the morning we perceive it differently than in the evening. After hours in loud environments we perceive it differently than after a week in the desert. When we turn our head we perceive it differently while the loudness "meter" stays the same...”



Which is why a meter is needed to consistently quantify loudness, as a meter does not suffer from ear fatigue and when using it properly, your mix level shouldn’t creep up over hours of mixing.



Try it for yourself and see if it provides any benefit before dismissing it out of hand

[fader8]

Ah, I see where this is going. The application that Bob described is exactly what the Dolby LM100 was designed for, and now its plug-in equivalent. But that is a different thing than having a meter specification that quantifies loudness say, between two completely different songs played in two different places. For that, we really need a new standard for SLM's. Even then it's an ugly mess. But maybe someday.

Bob, this flags back to our previous discussion re. intensity/loudness/etc. I'm thinkin with all this "stimulus" money coming, we should be able to get a grant to do it! Waddaya say?!?!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by fader8

Ah, I see where this is going. The application that Bob described is exactly what the Dolby LM100 was designed for, and now its plug-in equivalent. But that is a different thing than having a meter specification that quantifies loudness say, between two completely different songs played in two different places. For that, we really need a new standard for SLM's. Even then it's an ugly mess. But maybe someday.

Bob, this flags back to our previous discussion re. intensity/loudness/etc. I'm thinkin with all this "stimulus" money coming, we should be able to get a grant to do it! Waddaya say?!?!

Send the money to me! I need an audio tax credit! How many dB is a dollar?

BK

[wado1942]

I've already given you $40. But I'll give you another $1 per dB the average loudness of the mass distributed CD drops.

I was hoping DVD-A and SACD would skirt the loudness thing, but they only seem marginally better. Now I can't even find SACDs worth having anymore.

[Susceptor]

If by loudness you mean RMS or averaging, than I would suggest PSP Vintage Meter.

It's free, it works great and you can adjust the integration time and the 0 VU reference. It can also work as a PPM (some might find it useful - I don't) with adjustable integration time and return time. Also, it has a "led" that ligths up when you clip, with adjustable over counter.

After this I would recommend Inspector XL, but I don't find it such versatile.

[Throttler]

Originally Posted by Susceptor

If by loudness you mean RMS or averaging, than I would suggest PSP Vintage Meter.

looks good too

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Then ultimately you've made an academic argument. We're not arguing the philospohy here, you make sense in that regard.*

That loudness doesn't exist and doesn't have any meaning outside the human brain is a simple fact. Nothing academic about it.

It is a very unfortunate misconception you and most of the other "pragmatists" are following, which results in practical problems, not in academic ones. The "loudness war" being one of them.
You personally are able to do the abstract thinking to differentiate between level and loudness and you know that any loudness "metering" is level metering with weighting. But all the other half deaf and ignorant people in the music business maybe not and by giving them a "meter" you just give them another weapon of mass destruction. I already hear the morons coming in "Hey, don't argue with me, I have measured it, you are not being as loud as they are..."

Do you promise, that all loudness meters will have in bold print written on them: "Loudness meters are not able to measure absolute loudness. Loudness depends only on the listeners volume and his ears. And louder just means louder, not better" ?

Unless you are also saying that "all attempts to make a useful meter that approximates the human perception of loudness are entirely invalid and make no sense whatsoever".

Which I disagree with :-)

First, a "meter" that approximates is no meter. (unless we really want to get academic about Heisenberg) (BTW, a professional community that calls very slow integrating VU-meters "meters" when it comes to measuring stochastic AC voltages may have some problems with the concept of a meter in the first place. These are meters, but certainly not for audio. They had their use in history though.)

Second, the human perception of loudness doesn't exist. There are individual differences, there are age related differences, there are differences regarding the linguistic and sonic environment you grew up in (!)
Whatever fancy meter you come up with, if the layman could look at the "meter" while the loudspeakers are muted and say 'it is loud' I would start getting cramps in the part of my brain that processes logic.
There are scenarios, where it would be better to have these "indicators", rather than having no means at all to adjust relative loudness, not always there is qualified personal and professional monitoring possible. But for mastering there is no point since it is always "human supervised".

. What counts are the PRACTICAL (not philosophical) implications of the use of such meters. I'm particularly interested in whether the TC Radar meter can make a difference in the hands of semi-skilled engineers producing program material for radio/TV.

Funny though, that correct loudness for radio programs was achieved only in times, where there were no attempts of measuring it but people in control rooms were listening to it and adjusting accordingly.
It is easy to run a statistic, that proofs that relative loudness was better managed in times where no "meters" were available.
So we don't need meters, but competence, ears and freedom to adjust the level according to human loudness perception.
Every old school engineer learned, that in radio you level the pop music -6 dB and the voice 0 dB on average and adjust from there.
In classical music the other way around or the voice even less (-9 dB)

I do think it comes down to an education problem that originated in the US. From there this whole "loudness" insanity started.
Difference between loudness and level, is it really that hard to understand?
Difference between relative loudness between audio material and absolute loudness. Really a Masters degree in rocket science necessary, to understand the difference?
That more means better, this deeply American archetype is that hard to overcome?
That we have no means whatever to influence absolute loudness on the listening side from the content creation side? Purely academic?

The other night I watched FX network on my Dolby AC3-equipped surround system in the bedroom. The movie was exceptionally well reproduced, dialogue was clean and natural, effects were "banging", it was amazing. Probably an accident. Then the commercials came on and they were painful, at least 10 dB louder than the movie. It was very annoying, good thing I have a remote volume control. All this makes sense how it happens. But in my world, the movie should have been left alone (uncompressed) and the commercials turned down. Isn't it worthwhile to start searching for some intelligent software and metering that will help us get to this goal, instead of compressing the bejezus out of the movie and the commercials and making everything suck?

How would a meter help? I did this in the past with listening and some experience easily. On the broadcasting side you just need the desire to do it, monitoring and a fader in the signal path...

But if greed dictates sound, no meter helps...

Now, if I just could figure out, how I could make tons of money with the pain-meter and the beauty-meter I developed. Or does selling meters for perception only work with the audio crowd?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

That loudness doesn't exist and doesn't have any meaning outside the human brain is a simple fact. Nothing academic about it.

It is a very unfortunate misconception you and most of the other "pragmatists" are following, which results in practical problems, not in academic ones. The "loudness war" being one of them.
You personally are able to do the abstract thinking to differentiate between level and loudness and you know that any loudness "metering" is level metering with weighting.

I understand. But you're forgetting one thing: A well-designed "loudness meter" will have its reference loudness defined RELATIVE to digital peak level.

Although a "loudness meter" is an approximation of the listener's perception, the real key is how the meter can be used as tool in broadcast pre-production and BECAUSE the loudness is also defined as x number of dB below peak program level, then this can result in better-sounding program material! There isn't even a peak meter in the TC version of the loudness meter, just a peak overload light. So overcompressed material will be brought down but material with a good crest factor will be allowed to retain it.

This idea has been demonstrated with success with the K-System meters even though currently K-meters are not even weighted. Do not forget that crest factor is tied to sound quality and that setting the ZERO point on the Radar loudness meter relative to peak level will have an effect on crest factor and sound quality of broadcast material. It's not just an attempt to have consistent loudness levels. Especially when preparing material for broadcasting.

I recommend you take a good look at the design of the TC Electronic Loudness meter. It's pretty remarkable. I predict that it will help change the sonic quality of our program material---for the better. Especially if the concept ("volume normalization") makes it ubiquitously to the home playback system, as soon as producers begin to realize they do not have control over the listener's loudness, they will tend to back off.

It's a long ways off, there are many obstacles, but I wouldn't take a negative attitude about loudness metering when you look at it in this manner.