LUFS meter PowerPC friendly?

[ssp3]

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.)   

[IIO]

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?

[IIO]

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.

[ssp3]

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. 

[IIO]

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of course today 2006 stuff is long outdated. there are dozens of papers flying around where people suggest to use ISO 226 curves (which itself is also considered outdated and waiting for a follow-up) instead of 1770/R128 type of filters, add binarual corrections, take into account how hearing changes with complex material and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.

life before 2006? looked like that! and it was about time to stop that before we end up with pure squarewave-music.

[apite]

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.

[daddyjeff]

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.

[IIO]

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.

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.

[ssp3]

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. 

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. 

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. 
https://www.amazona.de/test-nugen-audio-vislm-lm-correct-bundle-r128-konformes-metering/

[daddyjeff]

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.

[IIO]

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.

[daddyjeff]

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. 

[apite]

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.

[IIO]

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. 

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.

[daddyjeff]

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. 

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.

[IIO]

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.

[ssp3]

I guess using LUFS metering on material like this would be pretty useless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJLUUTf_0nw

[teroyk]

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):

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.

[IIO]

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.

[ssp3]

...
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.