Mac OS 9 Lives
Digital Audio Workstation & MIDI => Digital Audio Workstations & MIDI Applications => PowerPC OSX-based DAW Applications => Topic started by: alenu on April 12, 2023, 03:46:36 AM
-
I´m looking for a loudness meter plugin (vst / au, or both) capable to measure in LUFS that can be installed on 10.5. Does such a thing even exist? LUFS became a standard loudness measure circa 2012, I think. So it may exist for PPC or not. Any info will be very appreciated. Thanks!
-
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/LKFS (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/LKFS)
Es una sigla que en inglés significa Loudness, K-weighted, relative to Full Scale (o LKFS) y en español Sonoridad, con ponderación K, relativa a Fondo de Escala (escala completa). La regla se aplica mediante el uso de la formula celda de gontz de estabilización auditiva, estudiando como referencia absoluta la gama de frecuencias que capta el oído humano así como su respuesta. El objetivo de su uso es estandarizar la medición de los niveles de audio, en vistas de una normalización de los niveles entre programas y emisoras en la radiodifusión de televisión y de otros medios.
Su innovación principal es incluir en la medición la curva de respuesta en frecuencias del oído humano (a un nivel de escucha típico de 70 dBA), denominada curva K. Además de la sumatoria de todos los canales de un sistema multicanal en un solo indicador, que evalúa la potencia total, lo que involucra medir el verdadero valor eficaz (o RMS). Estos conceptos se han concatenado en un algoritmo, que deben implementar los medidores identificados bajo este estándar. El que está definido en la actual Recomendación ITU BS.1770-4. 1
La sigla LUFS que en inglés significa Loudness Units relative to Full Scale, y en español Unidades de Sonoridad relativas a Fondo de Escala, es un sinónimo del LKFS y fue introducido en el documento EBU R128. 2
Loudness Units (o LU) que corresponde a Unidades de Sonoridad, es una unidad adicional usada en la EBU R128. Esta describe el nivel Lk sin una referencia absoluta al fondo de escala y por lo tanto indica las diferencias en los niveles de sonoridad con respecto a una referencia (típicamente -23LUFS).
LKFS fue inicialmente publicado en la ITU-R BS.1770-0 en junio de 2006. 3
En septiembre de 2007 se publicó la primera revisión BS.1770-1.4
En marzo de 2011, la ITU introdujo una compuerta en la medición de la sonoridad integral en la segunda revisión de la recomendación, ITU-R BS.1770-2. 5
En agosto de 2012, la ITU publicó la tercera revisión de esta recomendación ITU-R BS.1770-3. 6
En octubre de 2015, la ITU publicó la cuarta revisión de esta recomendación ITU-R BS.1770-4.
La EBU ha sugerido que la ITU debería cambiar la unidad a LUFS, ya que el término LKFS no cumple con la convención de nombres científica y no está en línea con el estándar definido en la ISO 80000-8. Por lo tanto, sugieren que el 'Loudness level, k-weighted' debería ser Lk, lo que haría al Lk y al LUFS equivalentes, por cuanto LUFS indica el valor de Lk con referencia al fondo de escala digital. 7
En la práctica los LKFS de la ITU-R BS.1770 y los LUFS de la EBU R-128 son idénticos. 8
-
I think that K-system can be achieved
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-system)
The K-system is an audio level measuring technique proposed by mastering engineer Bob Katz in the paper "An integrated approach to Metering, Monitoring and Levelling".[1] It proposes a studio monitor calibration system and a set of meter ballistics to help engineers produce consistent sounding music while preserving appropriate dynamic range.[2]
1 http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=65 (http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=65)
-
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/bob-katz-mastering-audio (https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/bob-katz-mastering-audio)
I sometimes mix on Mac OS 9 but the summing bus is on other machine that has the God Particle+ Waves LUFS metter. Anyway, before going to the mix bus I check levels with Waves PAZ analyzer.
If you learn how VU meter from PAZ translates to LUFS you can live without counting LUFS just before mastering. In masteriung you check the lufs, not before (unless VU is red hot)
-
Waves one I use on Mastering
https://www.waves.com/plugins/wlm-loudness-meter (https://www.waves.com/plugins/wlm-loudness-meter)
(https://media.wavescdn.com/images/products/plugins/max/wlm-loudness-meter.png?auto=format&fit=max&ixlib=imgixjs-3.6.1&w=1246)
-
Last revision.
Maybe IIO can make you a VU-meter that measures LUFS.
-
Maybe IIO can make you a VU-meter that measures LUFS.
Check his "Plug-In of the month" http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6675.0.html (http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6675.0.html) in case he releases it.
-
Wow, that was a lot of info! Thanks! Learning that LKFS and LUFS are equivalent in practice pointed me to this: http://www.channld.com/audioleak/
Supposedly it will run from Tiger to Catalina, PPC Macs included. It does measure LKFS with a paid license. I think it may worth a try.
-
It would be great if IIO makes one, though
-
We have 3 developers here AFAIK.
OS923 doesnt touch sound IIRC
IIO is giving us a self developed plug every month, we cant hurry him. Math needed for a LUFS meter is "university high level stuff" that could be out of reach with his Pluggo toolbox, but I hope we can help with the math needed. Also, there is a filter that has to be added to the sonic path. Probably a master use of EQ can do the filter "quick". We dont need it to "sound" good but to measure fine.
I have no intention to push the third developer in anything or to reveal that he is a dev.
-
i have a LUFS meter, but since it requires FFT it does not run 100% ideal on PPC G4 processors. FFT sometimes clicks and crackles in max. :(
not that it would matter much if the results are 0,1% off, just saying.
for OSX there should be some available, maybe even free, but i cant tell offhand, between 2005-2010 the product overview hast lost me. (EBU R128 is from 2012... but "universal binary" was still present here and there.)
-
maybe i should add this "follow transport" feature like in the waves? right now i have a manual start and stop button for "integrated". :)
-
hm, no, this was the first free one, it is from 2018. :)
https://youlean.co/download-youlean-loudness-meter/
-
Dk audio hardware meters are period correct for 2000ish
-
Waves one I use on Mastering
(https://media.wavescdn.com/images/products/plugins/max/wlm-loudness-meter.png?auto=format&fit=max&ixlib=imgixjs-3.6.1&w=1246)
Yes, after trying about 6 different ones, this is also the one I have used for the past 4 years. It is extremely easy to use...
With a simple gain slider... dial in..
Ballads -16
Rock -15
Heavy Rock -14
If the range is less than 4 or 5, you better ease up on some compression somewhere because you now lost any dynamics
-
fabfilter pro-L supports PPC but it is also commercial (and probably no longer supported)
-
All these OSX plug-ins exist(ed) as PPC versions. With the exception of Inspector XL, Nugen and SpectraFoo, others were either free downloads or bundled as "free" (no copy protected) with other software.
Inspector XL has K-xx metering modes and all sorts of bells and whistles. TT DR tool is what one would call a "LUFS meter". No history graph, though. The other two are more for a bit detectives, with Bitter being my favourite.
As to the Fabfilter Pro-L - its metering (and the whole eye-candy GUI) is pretty useless. Way too distractive for my taste. (Anyone remember Cubase's "Ears only"? :D )
Then there's offline DR metering tool (Intel/PPC) by the same creators of TT DR meter, although limited to 16 bit files. Those two are now part of MAAT product line, btw.
For OS9 there's Spectrafoo (as plugin) with built-in K-metering. Back in the day they even had stripped down version of it called "Mastering Level Meter".
Spectrafoo, including early PPC/UB versions, can be used as metering device for other apps in OSX too. One have to install Soundflower for that.
UPDATE. NuGen's VisLM LUFS meter also was released as Intel/PPC universal binary.
Is that enough? ;)
-
UPDATE. NuGen's VisLM LUFS meter also was released as Intel/PPC universal binary.
VisLM
Really like the history graph and the layout of the plugin, so I went to check it out...
But the Waves Plugin is $29 and this guy is $449 :(
-
The problem with Waves is that they install their whole ecosystem, Waveshells and all that stuff. And they've switched to Intel only quite early, leaving PPC people behind.
The guy is definitely NUTS with his $449! :o But you know what happens when 'the other guys' see that kind of a price tag.. They pull out their crowbars just for fun and then the tag is all that is left.. ::)
-
For OS9 there's Spectrafoo (as plugin) with built-in K-metering.
everything pre-2006 does just "something" and you dont really know what it does.
UPDATE. NuGen's VisLM LUFS meter also was released as Intel/PPC universal binary.
i wasnt sure about nugen, blue cat and those, also because of the above magic date.
that audio-OSX-PPC phobic disorder made me not installing a lot of those.
449 bucks is hilarious, even though the graphics are great and probably were a lot of work.
neyrinck wants USD 3000 for a dolby E encoder. or USD 500 for a one week "rental" license. back in the days the demo times were longer... and free.
-
For OS9 there's Spectrafoo (as plugin) with built-in K-metering.
everything pre-2006 does just "something" and you dont really know what it does.
It might be true for other stuff, but not for Spectrafoo.
This is where K-metering first appeard as a result of collaboration between Mr. K-metering himself and BJ.Buchalter, one of the brightest persons in the industry. Starting with release 3f17, IIRC.
(I've been using Spectrafoo heavily from version 1.5. Even tried to run it on NuBus machine + AMII. At 64k FFT, it brought it to a halt.) ;D
-
i agree about BJB, but i do not see anything close to an LKSF metering tool in the OS9 version of SF3 (not to speak of long term and programme measurement, which is what people need to master for broadcasting and streaming.)
where is it hidden?
-
you guys just made me switch back from my former fantasy measurement plug-in to a default 1770 with IIR-based k- and rlb-filters. maybe not the worst idea. more requests please. ;)
-
Re. Spectrafoo - I was talking about its overall "quality" of level measurement, not presence of LUFS measurement window. I've missed that by 2006 you ment ITU-R BS.1770 first recommendation date.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010802211107/http://www.mhlabs.com/update/f17_Release_Notes.html
Btw, there was life before 2006. ;)
-
yeah, nothing against miezekatz, but miezekatz-metering proposals were SPL and not loudness.
of course today 2006 stuff is long outdated. :) there are dozens of papers flying around where people suggest to use ISO 226 curves (which itself is also considered outdated and waiting for a follow-up) instead of 1770/R128 type of filters, add binarual corrections, take into account how hearing changes with complex material and how transients can change perception, use modern KI techniques, have more women, blacks and asians in the subject groups, and so on and so forth.
never forget that loudness is subjective by definition... hehehe but humans still try to measure it as correctly as possible and fight over it or try to follow norms and standards. :P
life before 2006? looked like that! and it was about time to stop that before we end up with pure squarewave-music.
-
LUFS wasn't really a thing until 2010 when EBU R-128 was published (with the AES adopting it shortly afterwards). Bob Katz promoted the K-System used for Film Monitoring before that, so it's *similar* but not entirely... Orban had a Loudness meter that I tested around 2011 or so (https://www.orban.com/meter) but I don't know of any one before that, or if the Orban one is OS9 compliant (doubtful, but does support WinXP).
I just don't think there would be one for Mac OS9 because of when it was created, but you could try finding one that uses the K-System, or use RMS Metering at around -1.5x the level desired as a workaround and then measure the file with a LUFS meter on a current (OS X) machine to test for Loudness and True Peaks.
-
LUFS wasn't really a thing until 2010 when EBU R-128 was published (with the AES adopting it shortly afterwards). Bob Katz promoted the K-System used for Film Monitoring before that, so it's *similar* but not entirely... Orban had a Loudness meter that I tested around 2011 or so (https://www.orban.com/meter) but I don't know of any one before that, or if the Orban one is OS9 compliant (doubtful, but does support WinXP).
I just don't think there would be one for Mac OS9 because of when it was created, but you could try finding one that uses the K-System, or use RMS Metering at around -1.5x the level desired as a workaround and then measure the file with a LUFS meter on a current (OS X) machine to test for Loudness and True Peaks.
I suspect that in some DAWS as a digital performer you had loudness measurement options, but I don't know if there are native LUFS plugins with other names or pseudonyms.
TC spark had TCworks mastering plugins and something similar I remember using with this mastering editor.
More can be found in DSP Quattro for Mac OsX (powerpc) and in logic 7 and logic express.
-
as he said, before there were EBU recommendations or broadcaster request about how material should look like, nobody would have asked for a loudness measuring tool of a specific standard.
today loudness measuring plug-ins incldue presets for various streaming services which can be updated online when the format changes. but what would you have used it for in 2006? to equalize an album you can use your ears when RMS seems to fail.
orban of course is the opposing faction, their greatest contribution to the broadcasting world is their magic übercompressor tool which literally destroys everything you send into it. :P
apropos k-metering. what would you say about a cubase skin with k-metering beside the faders? it is of course peak only, but a new scale graphics could be fun. when i remember right, the upper 18 db or so are pretty linear.
-
But the Waves Plugin is $29 and this guy is $449 :(
Speaking of $29 vs. $449..
If you head over to https://www.toneboosters.com/changelog.html , at the bottom of the page you will get a download of all of their plug-ins, including two that do LUFS metering FOR FREE !!! Isn't that nice? NuGen with his $449 can go pound sand. :P
Created by Dutch scientist Jeroen Breebaart, who specializes in this field.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061016163628fw_/http://www.jeroenbreebaart.com/home_bio.htm
The bundle contains v.3.3.0 of the LUFS plug-ins, but provided Key files work with other 3.x.x versions too.
Some can be pulled from archive org, others can be found in usual places.
Starting with 3.1.5 they are 10.10.+ and 64 bit Intel only. Prior to that - 32/64 bit Intel, minimum OS=10.5. I've checked them on my SL machine, but some (not all) hosts didn't like them and produced white plug-in window.
There was PPC version prior to v.2.5, but it's not available anywhere. OP could try to mail Mr. Breebaart, maybe he will agree to release those early versions to PPC folks, like he already did twice in his company's history. That was cool move by him, I have to say. 8)
Ok, with the exception of last bit, this was a waaay OT drift into today's world. Enough of that.
EDIT. For those of you who understand German. Nice reader comment, btw. ;D
https://www.amazona.de/test-nugen-audio-vislm-lm-correct-bundle-r128-konformes-metering/
-
Then another very strange thing happens and that is that in my case when I use Pro Tools Le 5.2 with digi001 under Mac Os9, in arrangements without a master fader, I get better results than using a modern LUFS plugin. in the end result everything sounds better on my modern iphone or mac book pro on their speakers, but also on studio monitors.
In other words, I mix and don't use plugins on the master and always try to make it sound at -8db below the 0db level. I don't use sends or buses, I do everything with native protocol plugins and those of waves 3.0 on the track that I need to control the mix.
-
in the end result everything sounds better
measuring and setting levels really have nothing to do with how something sounds, so yes, that is strange. :)
-
in the end result everything sounds better
measuring and setting levels really have nothing to do with how something sounds, so yes, that is strange. :)
Sure, it's exactly like that, no platform rejects my jobs like when I applied LUFS.
So I kicked that LUFS rule in the ass. 8)
-
Loudness Units are an Odd Duck with Good Intentions, IMO.
The idea started as a Broadcasting Standard to keep people from racing to their remotes every time a commercial came on at increased volume to get viewer's attention - but it only applies to OTA signals, not Cable or other delivery methods.
Like the Loudness Wars in music in the late 90's early 2000's, the Streamers realized that listeners would like this too, so Volume Normalization became a feature (although easily defeated Preferences if wanted). Streaming Services will *reduce* a track to the level used on the Platform, but they will not amplify one that doesn't - which means to compete with everyone else, you have to have the levels 'within the Targets' or suffer the consequences of a lower volume track...
Many (especially in the Electronic community) stick to the '-XdB Peak level' and let the Streamer's algorithm work their magic, but my Clients prefer to have tracks just slightly above the Target levels to compete with everyone out there. It allows for more Dynamic Range in the music, which people prefer over hyper compressed tracks that just get pulled down by the Algo.
Ian Shepherd has a lot of info on this over at his Production Advice website (https://productionadvice.co.uk), and has a free Online tool in conjunction with Meter Plugs to check how your tracks will compare (https://www.loudnesspenalty.com)
In the end, the old adage of 'If it sounds good it is good' will always apply, but LUFS is the closest we have of metering based on how our ears (and brains) work, and it is working to change the 'Louder is always Better' nonsense we suffered through only a decade ago. I'm convinced it's a good thing, but takes a bit of wrapping your head around to understand fully.
-
Sure, it's exactly like that, no platform rejects my jobs like when I applied LUFS.
So I kicked that LUFS rule in the ass. 8)
oh you mean after streaming.
well, yes and no, you can of course just ignore it and still meet the requirements of a customer/platform.
that is the mean thing with loudness standards, some softwares pretend to do things automatically, but in fact it is not soo easy to supply the right settings. plus a platform might change their setting at any time.
but at least in theory the following should be true: when you master to -16 LUFs and it is still getting compressed by youtube, something on either side went wrong.
with certain formats which carry metadata (such as dolby e) those can also cause trouble; if you accidentially flag mixed content or music to "speech only", whoops, it is too loud again.
last but not least we should not forget that for pop music it is a pretty easy job. the difficult part is to master experimental music or the sound track for an animal reportage. those cases can also explain the weird algorithms used to calculate the "programme" value.
-
Sure, it's exactly like that, no platform rejects my jobs like when I applied LUFS.
So I kicked that LUFS rule in the ass. 8)
oh you mean after streaming.
well, yes and no, you can of course just ignore it and still meet the requirements of a customer/platform.
that is the mean thing with loudness standards, some softwares pretend to do things automatically, but in fact it is not soo easy to supply the right settings. plus a platform might change their setting at any time.
but at least in theory the following should be true: when you master to -16 LUFs and it is still getting compressed by youtube, something on either side went wrong.
with certain formats which carry metadata (such as dolby e) those can also cause trouble; if you accidentially flag mixed content or music to "speech only", whoops, it is too loud again.
last but not least we should not forget that for pop music it is a pretty easy job. the difficult part is to master experimental music or the sound track for an animal reportage. those cases can also explain the weird algorithms used to calculate the "programme" value.
It is not the best place for this debate, but I am clear that I have overcome the problems that 80% of mortals have with the LUFS or LKFS rule.
-
there are two sides: there are the broadcasting standards themselves, which totally makes sense.
the other side is the tools for production. you can get close to the required standard by using ears and old school metering only, but you can also fuck it up using the latest super auto and whatnot plug-in.
-
I guess using LUFS metering on material like this would be pretty useless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJLUUTf_0nw
-
there are two sides: there are the broadcasting standards themselves, which totally makes sense.
the other side is the tools for production. you can get close to the required standard by using ears and old school metering only, but you can also fuck it up using the latest super auto and whatnot plug-in.
That is why some times there was singles with Radio edit...actually that was before LUFS-metering :)
Seriously, broadcasting standards is good to know, but have to remember maximum loudness means maximum loudness, not good overall sound. FM-radiostations compress sound always (some more, some less), so this is reason why some 80's songs sound good these days and some ,modern too much loudness, songs sounds strange in radio.
Anyway..LUFS-metering is good to have to mastering to target levels of different streaming-services, because they normalize file level down, if your song maximum LUFS-level is more than target level of streaming-service. But, mastering to streaming services is different than to CD, DVD or vinyl, it is just one media more (actually it is many media, because some streaming servises use −14 LUFS and another use -18 LUFS)
It would be nice, if there is simple offline tool for Mac OS 9 to check whole song file that LUFS is under some number, something like that (picture is ebur128-command from ebumeter for Linux):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/EBU_R_128_measurement_on_Linux_screenshot.png)
That kind of tool would be enough for LUFS metering, if you do as IIO said, use ears and old school metering. And make good sounding song, because it is easily under -14 LUFS, if don't compress the sound to sh*t. Remember target LUFS-level means it should be that or under, it doesn't mean it have to be that or even near of it.
-
why? if you dont measure, you can change it.
if nobody cared, then this alternate programme https://youtu.be/6q58y45ri2A?t=3295 would be delivered twice as loud as james last and had to be pushed through a limiter when broadcasting.
-
...
It would be nice, if there is simple offline tool for Mac OS 9 to check whole song file that LUFS is under some number, something like that (picture is ebur128-command from ebumeter for Linux):
...
What looks so simple in Terminal, or whatever it is called there, is probably dependent on zillion different Linux libs and stuff. Who's going to port that crap over to OS9 and why? ;) My observation is that most posters here use modern machines in their daily lives anyway, so, popping in a thumb drive or transfering a file over network and checking it on a modern machine is more realistic scenario than spending many man-hours in coding something that maybe 2-3 people will use.
-
in case he was looking at me, it will only be a few mouseclicks more to make a OS9 standalone from a plug-in. luckily since a few years i am also able to implement a proper nonrealtime mode, so that you can process stuff as fast as possible.
then it will be faster compared to inside protools or logic, only cubase had the same option.
while i will never become friends with terminals, it is amazing what all exists as services. it should be a nobrainer to make a frontend or applescript for this in 10.16, just as those exist for fileconversion, samplerateconversion, rar, dmg... you name it.
-
I guess using LUFS metering on material like this would be pretty useless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJLUUTf_0nw
well and everything that was done since 1990, I don't know if you've heard the mainstream from that time, there are things that just sound incredible everywhere in 2023 and will continue to sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARfJ55bUAw0
LUFS stands for Loudness Unit Full Scale, which is the new standard for measuring audio loudness. All the speculation about it just doesn't get anywhere and is just a hobby.
-
Eek! Those frenchies with their pseudo-house. Never played that record at the club, too cheesy. Even remixes by Van Helden of their later stuff are barely tolerable. But if the millenials find it cool, so be it.
And thanks for explaining what LUFS is, otherwise I might have missed it.
-
Sooo, I've dug up PPC versions from 1.9 to 2.3 of ToneBoosters LUFS metering plugins*. Version 2.3 already has 1770-0 and 1770-2 metering modes.
Got them running on Leopard on PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz. Boy, are these G4 machines slow with OSX. Almost unbearable. :(
--
* One only has to know the right people ;)
-
Sooo, I've dug up PPC versions from 1.9 to 2.3 of ToneBoosters LUFS metering plugins*. Version 2.3 already has 1770-0 and 1770-2 metering modes.
Got them running on Leopard on PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz. Boy, is this thing slow with OSX. Almost unbearable. :(
--
* One only has to know the right people ;)
That happens to you because you don't put revolution 909 ;D
Anyway they did everything with apple macintosh and rack modules and some machines that they both had, the apple macintosh was only for midi with Emagic Micrologic and the control of the digital tape DAT that recorded audio at 24 bits 96khz, in 1996. :o 8) 8)
(https://preview.redd.it/mq4qsoute5w51.jpg?width=1150&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=d572b8f718dbf284e8ff97a33a8a2f1d597c922c)
(https://preview.redd.it/qbjjkoute5w51.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=916c01d9df9dd3b231632a84acbefaa3aab8a466)
-
Emagic Micrologic... :o ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7B78kdKF8U
-
Emagic Micrologic... :o ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7B78kdKF8U
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/guillemot-maxi-studio-isis (https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/guillemot-maxi-studio-isis)
My ISIS came with Logic Audio Pro ISIS, a micrologic/logic silver with 16 audiotracks (January 1999)
-
now you have lost me.^^
-
now you have lost me.^^
I know having a past with ISIS is not well seen with USA/EU. ;D
But it was my first 16 track thing. Much more advanced than my Yamaha 4 track cassette recorder. A nice intro when PT were for rich people/real producers.
One year with it, later Logic 4.x and finally Logic 5 (Hacked) on Win. Then I bought a G3 B&W with an AM-III. Protools 5/6 on win with AM-3 was great. So I bought another AM-III for the G3.
I realized that a setup in a G3 with hacked Logic 4 was way more stable than all my toolkit on Pentium 4+ Win XP.
A producer friend of mine convinced me that ProTools was the way to edit+share projects with him. And since then (2003) I have the Protools route.
-
Take this! :P ;D ;D ;D
-
GCHQ.GOV.UK is watching you.
no ISIS deployment before marriage!
-
Sooo, I've dug up PPC versions from 1.9 to 2.3 of ToneBoosters LUFS metering plugins*. Version 2.3 already has 1770-0 and 1770-2 metering modes.
Got them running on Leopard on PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz. Boy, are these G4 machines slow with OSX. Almost unbearable. :(
Would be faster with Tiger? OSX10.5 is not designed for G4.
-
Probably, but the problem is that most of the higher end PPC audio applications and plug-ins are compiled for 10.5.
But, I'm using PowerBook G4 only for testing purposes, some sort of proof of concept. I do not plan to use it 'for real'.
(Wait til' I test double precision oversampling EQ on this machine. I bet that this single plug-in alone will bring it to a halt.)
-
Probably, but the problem is that most of the higher end PPC audio applications and plug-ins are compiled for 10.5.
But, I'm using PowerBook G4 only for testing purposes, some sort of proof of concept. I do not plan to use it 'for real'.
(Wait til' I test double precision oversampling EQ on this machine. I bet that this single plug-in alone will bring it to a halt.)
I don't know, I think that there is high-end software even in OS7, although I don't know what you mean by ¨high-end in 10.5¨
The 10.5 system didn't have as much software or dedicated hardware as os9 does, in fact a lot of things from os7, os8 and osX also gave more professional software support to os9.
You just have to take a look at the entire collection of high-end mac os9 software on this website. ???
One example: https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/digitalfishphones-audio-plugins-vstau
-
there are more different products (VST) released for OS9 than for OSX PPC, but that does not mean that they would be better.
-
For many, especially newer generation, quantity + nice looking GUIs is all that matters. ;)
One example: https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/digitalfishphones-audio-plugins-vstau
Ah, Urs Heckmann. I wonder if these contain time bombs too. ;D
-
die fische sind von sascha, der nach 15 jahren magix inzwischen wieder bei urs arbeitet. und die waren immer freeware!
(und du bist im thread verrutscht. :P )
-
Oops, warum lasse ich mich immer wieder mit Trolls ein. ;)
Good to know that they were free.
(Übrigens, ich bin kein Deutscher).
-
die fische sind von sascha, der nach 15 jahren magix inzwischen wieder bei urs arbeitet. und die waren immer freeware!
(und du bist im thread verrutscht. :P )
the fish are from sascha, who is now back at urs after 15 years with magix. and they always were freeware!
(and you've slipped in the thread. :P )
Oops, warum lasse ich mich immer wieder mit Trolls ein. ;)
Good to know that they were free.
(Übrigens, ich bin kein Deutscher).
Oops, why do I keep messing with trolls.
Gut zu wissen, dass sie frei waren.
(By the way, I'm not German).