RMS question...

[Ford Van]

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

 

[Change of POETS]

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?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=6108045

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

here's the url of that [article].
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun00/articles/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]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This way any monkey w/ this system and a L2 can smash there audio like a banana!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geez, don't we already have enough monkeys doing that now?

I'd counter-propose a "mastering metering system" that shows - 14dBRMS and/or -3dBFS peak as "0 dBML" (Mastering Level.) If someone wanted to be a youthful anarchist and push their peaks to +2 or +3 dBML to get their ya yas out, maximize loudness, and defy their parents without getting grounded, let 'em.

G.

 

[ofajen]

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.

Glen:

Better meters such as Dorrough actually show simulataneously both a true peak reading and an RMS reading, allowing for the user to quantify perceived loudness and crest factor. Even Roger Nichols' free Inspector plug in does this.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen:

Better meters such as Dorrough actually show simulataneously both a true peak reading and an RMS reading, allowing for the user to quantify perceived loudness and crest factor. Even Roger Nichols' free Inspector plug in does this.

Cheers,

Otto

True. And as one who has had Inspector from the EA days before Roger Nichols got his paws on it, it's one of my favorite status/metering plugs.

But in the whole range of audio gear, I believe those are more the exception to the rule when it comes to the general "peak hold VU meter". I might not be right about that perception of proportion, but in my time I have come across a *lot* of "peak hold" VU meters that appeared to do nothing but sample and hold the otherwise dynamic VU reading.

Sidebar topic only: Just something that's been bugging me since thinking about this topic. I think I have a very dusty, vague memory of a (I think) 2-channel tape deck back in the late 70s or early 80s that actually had an old-fashoned mechanical VU meters that included a second set of needles inside each meter that showed VU peak hold readings. Is that just a figment of my imagination from the Days of Idiotic Drug Use, or does someone remember which make/model that may have been?

G.