RMS question...

[Change of POETS]

Guru's, if I have a mastered track with, let's say... -12dbFS RMS, what is the equivilant in dbVU? Would it be +6dbVU? Or is that math incorrect?

Secondly... Most masters on albums I love the sound of, are showing me RMS values round -12dbFS, to (at the most) -9dbFS. To me, that's plenty loud... I have an album that a fellow artist friend had mastered by a major studio in portland, and his tracks are giving me RMS readings of -3dbFS!!!! It's very wide, and "Full" sounding, but there are absolutely no dynamics... the track can't breathe at all.

I'm not opening the loudness debate here but, is there any reason (other than radio) to have a master that loud?

[NYMorningstar]

Originally Posted by Change of POETS

I'm not opening the loudness debate here but, is there any reason (other than radio) to have a master that loud?

Even radio isn't a good reason!

[Change of POETS]

Originally Posted by NYMorningstar

Even radio isn't a good reason!

I didn't say it was a "good" reason... just a reason.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Change of POETS

is there any reason (other than radio) to have a master that loud?

It's really a matter of taste more than anything else.

Other than that, another factor is the density of the music itself. It's a lot easier to pump pink noise up to -3dBRMS than it is a recording of a metronome in a quiet room

But no, there is no "reason" - good or bad - why something "needs" to be that loud other than that's what the artist (or project producer) wants.

G.

[Ford Van]

Was said recording mastered at Freq?

[Change of POETS]

Originally Posted by Ford Van

Was said recording mastered at Freq?

No, it was mastered at Prairie Sun in Portland, I believe.

[flatfinger]

Originally Posted by Change of POETS

Guru's, if I have a mastered track with, let's say... -12dbFS RMS, what is the equivilant in dbVU?

Here, hope this helps:

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hey Flat,

Can I ask where you got that chart from?

G.

[Ford Van]

Originally Posted by Change of POETS

No, it was mastered at Prairie Sun in Portland, I believe.

There is a Prairie Sun in California, but not in Portland Oregon.

[flatfinger]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Hey Flat,

Can I ask where you got that chart from?

G.

I had it in my "illustrations" folder where I save stuff from my web research.
I think it's from something I read awhile ago over at the EM or SOS archive. Do you want me to see If I can find the link to the article??

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

I had it in my "illustrations" folder where I save stuff from my web research.
I think it's from something I read awhile ago over at the EM or SOS archive. Do you want me to see If I can find the link to the article??

Well, you don't have to break a sweat finding it for me, I thought maybe you might have the reference at hand. But I would be interested in the article which accompanied it and related information; the graph raises a couple of questions in my mind and I'd like to find out more about it.

G.

[sunnydyz]

here's the url of that image.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun0...es/metring.htm
TIP. look at the name of img. enter it at google images search. and BOOM!!! two results both from soundonsound magazine )) have a nice read

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Change of POETS

Guru's, if I have a mastered track with, let's say... -12dbFS RMS, what is the equivilant in dbVU? Would it be +6dbVU? Or is that math incorrect?

It all depends on how you calibrate your system. Some calibrate -18 dBFS to match 0 dBVU others may use -20, -14, or other level.

[Reggie]

Or rather, how the digital converter building dudes calibrate your converters. Apparently there was no standard set that says 0dbu or whatever must read as -18db in a digital audio converter.

That is a pretty cool diagram you dug up there, flatfinger.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Reggie

Or rather, how the digital converter building dudes calibrate your converters.

The translation from dBFS/dBVU is done during A/D and D/A conversion. One needs to adjust their input or output faders/trims to ensure proper reference levels. Usually you have control over this and in better converters adjustments there as well.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

It all depends on how you calibrate your system. Some calibrate -18 dBFS to match 0 dbVU others may use -20, -14, or other level.

This is why I wanted to look more into how that chart was created, as it seems to assume not only that the relation between dBu, VU, and dBFS is static, but it also assumes VU is calibrated to +4dBu, and that 0VU is calibrated to ~-14dBFS.

I can live with using the +4 convention for the chart, as long as that's explained as not applying to -10 calibrated gear or to tape machines with VU calibrated to tape saturations instead of line levels. And the -14dBFS calibration, while within the nominal range, does not jive with the conventional wisdom for most gear - at least as has been reported many times in this forum - of -18dBFS. This chart relates -18dBFS to 0dBu instead of 0VU, and doesn't take into account either the reportedly more common standard or the fact that it can reportedly vary by manufacturer.

I gotta run for now, have not yet had time to read the article (THANKS for the link, sunny! ), but these are the questions/ambiguities that the chart alone bring to the surface for me at this point.

G.

[flatfinger]

Originally Posted by sunnydyz

here's the url of that image.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun0...es/metring.htm
TIP. look at the name of img. enter it at google images search. and BOOM!!! two results both from soundonsound magazine )) have a nice read

Great tip!!!!! Thanks for the help.

[RAMI]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to flatfinger again.



Thanx for that chart...and thanx for the link Sunnydyz.

[flatfinger]

I,ve been using -14dbfs for a few years now ever since I started using the PSP "vintage meter " while tracking ( there out of poland I believe). It installs with a default value of 0 VU reference value of -14dbfs. That might be a european idea as to where we should be here across the pond. SOS is out of the U.K. (love the large format and most content, hate the shipping cost)

I think I've seen that 0VU ref. value recomended other places as well, But I guess it's only a de jour standard.

I changed the " vintage meter" VU integration ( attack ballistics) from the default 300 ms to 450 ms and have been very happy with the ease of use from the "old fashioned" VU metering.

I started out watching the stock DAW peak meters like a hawk and trying to use "every bit" !.
Man, what a waste of time


All this has inpired a new Avatar.

[Change of POETS]

Originally Posted by Ford Van

There is a Prairie Sun in California, but not in Portland Oregon.

Interesting... I'm not sure of the studio name, then. I know the engineer goes by the name K-IV (K-4) and owns a studio in the Portland area.

[Ford Van]

I have never heard of him. Looks like he does rap?

[Change of POETS]

Originally Posted by Ford Van

I have never heard of him. Looks like he does rap?

He does some rap, but mostly does rock from what I've heard...

Here's his MySpace page, but he doesn't mention the name of the studio anywhere I can see... http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...iendid=6108045

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by sunnydyz

here's the url of that [article].
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun0...es/metring.htm

Boy, I gotta tell you, there are some passages in that article that are of dubious quality:

In an attempt to combine the best aspects of both VU and quasi-peak meters, some bar-graph level displays are available with a VU response shown as a solid bar, accompanied by a floating dot above it which registers the PPM level.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong abut this, but I believe that many, if not most, bar graph VU meters with a peak hold function are only "holding" the highest reading of the slower VU reading and not the faster-transient peaks of a PPM.

While the VU meter has now become fairly standardised — zero point at +4dBu

True only for studio audio gear designed to operate at a +4dBu nominal line level. Not true for gear operating at -10dBu line level, many tape recorder VU meters, or most radio broadcast transmitter/receiver gear. Perhaps he could say that most studio audio gear is becoming standardized at +4dBu line levels, but such a statement cannot be as broadly applied to VU meters, not even all those (lke tape decks) that operate at +4 line levels.

Unfortunately, the nature of digital systems is such that even the briefest of transient overloads is clearly audible

You all know that I am NO advocate of digital clipping in any way shape or form, but even I have to say that the above statement is a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement. Even the breifest of transient overloads is clearly audible? Please. Not for 99.9% of the population. BUT, that doesn't mean one should consider them OK .

In Europe 0dBu has been standardised by the EBU to be -18dBFS, in order that a signal peaking in analogue equipment at the top of the EBU-standard PPM scale — and therefore with true peaks at around +16dBu — remains a little below the digital full scale value. Just to be awkward, though, the American SMPTE organisation set their standard for 0dBu at -20dBFS instead

OK, so the chart is only valid for European-calibrated gear. For us Yankees, the chart - as far as the FS calibration, anyway - is indeed incorrect. The statement that the "American SMPTE standard" is 0dBu = -20dBFS (or, 0VU on a +4dBu signal is equivalent to -16dBFS), sounds close enough for rock n' roll, and is probably what we sould be paying attention to here in the New World...again, even that is only if we assume that the converters we're using are indeed calibrated to that standard. That still should be checked in the converter specification.

G.

[Reggie]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Someone correct me if I'm wrong abut this, but I believe that many, if not most, bar graph VU meters with a peak hold function are only "holding" the highest reading of the slower VU reading and not the faster-transient peaks of a PPM.
G.

I have some Dorrough meters that work like this. And RME's TotalMix metering software works like this too. I'm sure there are others. Although maybe I'm confusing RMS with VU...I forget if there is a difference.

[flatfinger]

I want to propose a new metering standard:
the " use every dam bit " meter.
This way any monkey w/ this system and a L2 can smash there audio like a banana!!!!!!!!!!!!