[Mike Rivers]

I must be really dumb here. I want a VU meter to watch while I'm
recording and I either can't find one or can't figure out how to make it
work. I've been using Sound Forge 8 as a playground. It does have a
little VU meter display but I'd like something that doesn't require that
amount of concentration. It has a large bargraph meter, but that's only
active on playback (unless making it work when recording is something I
haven't figured out - Sound Forge's documentation is just a little
lacking).

PSP has a plug-in meter that looks like it might work, but I don't
really understand plug-ins very well and I can't seem to figure out how
to apply it to the input, or even if this is possible in Sound Forge.
(Sound Forge's documentation is just a little lacking). What do I need
to know? Or is there another meter I could be looking at? Ideally, I'd
like a stand-alone (not plug-in) version that would work on anything,
and of course I want it to be free, at least in a usable trial version.
And it would be nice if it would work with Audacity or other
free/cheapware.

This is for instructive purposes so ultimately I want to be able to tell
people how to set it up who are even dumber than I about these things.
The idea here is that most DAW programs just don't have a good way of
showing people what's going in, so it's hard to explain how to sensibly
set the record level.

Any suggestions?





--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Nick Brown]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:50:59 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:
PSP has a plug-in meter that looks like it might work, but I don't
really understand plug-ins very well and I can't seem to figure out how
to apply it to the input, or even if this is possible in Sound Forge.
(Sound Forge's documentation is just a little lacking). What do I need
to know? Or is there another meter I could be looking at? Ideally, I'd
like a stand-alone (not plug-in) version that would work on anything,
and of course I want it to be free, at least in a usable trial version.
And it would be nice if it would work with Audacity or other
free/cheapware.


Any suggestions?

Mike,

I don't know much about Sound Forge, but any plugin you use will
inevitably depend upon the signal flow through it. You could instead
use a stand-alone meter program, such as those available free from:

http://www.darkwood.demon.co.uk/PC/meter.html

(Go down to the bottom of that page to find the ones that use decibel
scales, rather than the BBC PPM scale. Just download and run on
anything from 95 to XP. Don't know about Vista. They read from
whatever is set as the default audio input in Windows Control Panel.)

Be aware though, that the ability to use a stand-alone application
alongside Sound Forge will depend upon whether the drivers for the
sound card allow two different programs to read from the audio input
simultaneously. Some will, but some won't, in which case you may need
to use the stand-alone meter while setting the level, closing the
meter and then doing the recording.

If you're intending to instruct other people on doing this, that's an
extra variable between one person's computer and another, but on the
other hand, it's probably a simpler variable than the differences in
signal flow through the numerous DAWs available.

-Nick

[Mike Rivers]

Nick Brown wrote:
I don't know much about Sound Forge, but any plugin you use will
inevitably depend upon the signal flow through it.

Be aware though, that the ability to use a stand-alone application
alongside Sound Forge will depend upon whether the drivers for the
sound card allow two different programs to read from the audio input
simultaneously. Some will, but some won't, in which case you may need
to use the stand-alone meter while setting the level, closing the
meter and then doing the recording.

This is a problem I discovered when I found another stand-alone meter.
Start it before you start recording with Sound Forge and it hijacks the
sound card. Sound Forge's recording window won't open. Start Sound
Forge recording first and the VU meter won't open. I've just been
playing with the "on line" computer here, not the studio computer, so
I'm using just the simple built-in AC97 sound card and it's stock MME
(or maybe WDM) driver.

I suspect that on a multitrack recording program that allows you to
monitor with a plug-in while recording (rather than just a preview),
inserting a VU meter plug-in might work. I haven't tried that yet. The
idea is to get people accustomed to keeping a half an eye on the meter
during an hour-long program where the level is likely to change. The
goal is to end up with a finished recording that doesn't need to be
level-adjusted throughout before it's suitable for human consumption.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

1. Hardware-proprietary meters. Echo Audio has a routing application with
meters that runs alongside the DAW software. This is an obvious advantage
because it doesn't have to be routed -- it's just "there." If the interface
manufacturer includes such a program, it's another scenario you might
consider for the tutorial.

Both Sound Forge and Audacity have built-in meters that respond when
recording but they're not very obvious. I want someone to be able to
glance at the computer screen and see what the meters are doing. As I
recall from a quick glance at the Mac program Boom Recorder, it offers
an uncluttered screen like this.

2. Some programs do have good meters. Cubase does include a decent display
as part of the mixer panels. Cool Edit had good meters, so I would expect
the descendant, Adobe Audition, to have them as well.

And some don't have good meters. Tracktion has a "Big Meters" button
that essentially replaces the tracks with meters. Nothing works as well
as a real hardware mechanical meter though. I might just make up a panel
with real meters on it and tell 'em to throw a towel over the computer
screen so as not to get distracted.

This seems like a simple enough thing to make, but I suspect that it's
not so simple because of how the drivers talk to other programs (one to
a customer without some trickery) but then nobody ever builds the
software I want, the way I want it. That's why I so dislike using it
when I'm trying to actually be productive.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Nick Brown wrote:

use a stand-alone meter program, such as those available free from:
http://www.darkwood.demon.co.uk/PC/meter.html

Taking a second look, that's indeed the stand-alone one that I was
playing with. Good meters if only I could get them to indicate input
level all the time.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[WillStG]

On Jul 27, 11:01*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
And some don't have good meters. Tracktion has a "Big Meters" button
that essentially replaces the tracks with meters. Nothing works as well
as a real hardware mechanical meter though. I might just make up a panel
with real meters on it and tell 'em to throw a towel over the computer
screen so as not to get distracted.

This seems like a simple enough thing to make, but I suspect that it's
not so simple because of how the drivers talk to other programs (one to
a customer without some trickery) but then nobody ever builds the
software I want, the way I want it. That's why I so dislike using it
when I'm trying to actually be productive.

Well I bought a Dourrough meter when I saw it on a blow out.

But there are a couple of free, useful metering plugins I've
found useful. Roger Nichols Digital offers the free plugin Inspector
(http://www.rndigital.org/nativeplugins.html ) , and SSL makes a very
useful free meter called X-ISM. Inspector is among other things
multiband so I use it quite a bit as a RTAS, and X-ISM shows peak
meters and bit depth and simulates common DACs so you can be aware of
inter-sample peaks that might cause distortion on cheaper CD players,
etc. I put them as an insert on the Main mix bus as far downstream as
possible, and leave the plugin edit window open. The work around for
the small plugin windows is a second monitor set to something like
720x480; or I change my laptop screen resolution to this when I'm up
and running when I use Inspector as an RTA for live sound.

Apparently Roger and the company that markets his plugin have had
an ugly falling out, and legal action is involved. But you can still
acquire the Inspector plugin for an email address, and the cost is the
same for X-ISM at SSL's website.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Steve House[_5_]]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:01:28 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:


..

Both Sound Forge and Audacity have built-in meters that respond when
recording but they're not very obvious. I want someone to be able to
glance at the computer screen and see what the meters are doing. As I
recall from a quick glance at the Mac program Boom Recorder, it offers
an uncluttered screen like this.

..

And some don't have good meters. Tracktion has a "Big Meters" button
that essentially replaces the tracks with meters. Nothing works as well
as a real hardware mechanical meter though. I might just make up a panel
with real meters on it and tell 'em to throw a towel over the computer
screen so as not to get distracted.

This seems like a simple enough thing to make, but I suspect that it's
not so simple because of how the drivers talk to other programs (one to
a customer without some trickery) but then nobody ever builds the
software I want, the way I want it. That's why I so dislike using it
when I'm trying to actually be productive.


Check out Dorrough's meters for a standalone unit. They don't have
the steamguage types with a needle but they do offer them in your
choice of LED bargraphs or arcs

[Mike Rivers]

Steve House wrote:

Check out Dorrough's meters for a standalone unit. They don't have
the steamguage types with a needle but they do offer them in your
choice of LED bargraphs or arcs

An outboard hardware meter is no problem, but it's not the solution I
was looking for.

I have the Roger Nichols Inspector free plug-in, and though I haven't
tried it, I suspect that the problem I was having with the other plug-in
meters is systemic. They work on the output, but not on the input,
probably because the driver for the audio hardware doesn't support it.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

Mike wrote:
just been playing with the "on line" computer here, not the studio
computer, so I'm using just the simple built-in AC97 sound card and
it's stock MME (or maybe WDM) driver.
WOUldn't know, but my question has more to do with wehther
folks might be better served to calibrate regular vu meters
to digital, i.e. 0vu = -12dbfs, etc. Whatever your house
standard happens to be.
tHen watch your analog vus.

The idea is to get people accustomed to keeping a half an eye on
the meter during an hour-long program where the level is likely to
change. The goal is to end up with a finished recording that
doesn't need to be level-adjusted throughout before it's suitable
for human consumption.

tHis is something imho used to happen all the time when
people did live broadcasting and direct to 2 track, etc.
DOn't people use tools for this sort of application that
provides this anymore?

Yah yah, I know, my MCI console in the truck has nice analog
vu meters.
Am I that much of a dinosaur? g.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Nick Brown]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:06:01 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

I have the Roger Nichols Inspector free plug-in, and though I haven't
tried it, I suspect that the problem I was having with the other plug-in
meters is systemic. They work on the output, but not on the input,
probably because the driver for the audio hardware doesn't support it.

Mike,

In the case of plugins, it's not because of the audio hardware driver,
it's just down to the design of the particular software application as
to where in the signal path the plugins do in fact "plug in".

Some programs will allow plugins for input metering; for example
Cubase's onscreen mixer has dedicated input channels where plugins can
be used to show the input level prior to any software gain control,
and (from memory) Samplitude can also use plugins to read input levels
if you select the "Software FX monitoring" mode.

No doubt there are other programs which can do this as well, but
there'll also be some that can't.

-Nick

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Mike wrote:
just been playing with the "on line" computer here, not the studio
computer, so I'm using just the simple built-in AC97 sound card and
it's stock MME (or maybe WDM) driver.
WOUldn't know, but my question has more to do with wehther
folks might be better served to calibrate regular vu meters
to digital, i.e. 0vu = -12dbfs, etc. Whatever your house
standard happens to be.
tHen watch your analog vus.

This is disussed in the FAQ... it was a big issue back in the early 1990s
when people were transitioning from analogue to digital infrastructure.

In the analogue world, meters are average-reading. In the digital world,
meters are peak-reading. They measure different things, because what
you need to know is different information.

Consequently, if you use average-reading meters (and VU meters are
average-reading) in the digital world, you have to leave substantial
headroom, and you don't know where your clipping point is.

It is normal practice to set metering so that -20 dBFS is 0 dBVU.

The idea is to get people accustomed to keeping a half an eye on
the meter during an hour-long program where the level is likely to
change. The goal is to end up with a finished recording that
doesn't need to be level-adjusted throughout before it's suitable
for human consumption.

tHis is something imho used to happen all the time when
people did live broadcasting and direct to 2 track, etc.
DOn't people use tools for this sort of application that
provides this anymore?

Yes, but they cost good money. And, a lot of people still use outboard
meters from guys like Dorrough and RME.

However, there are some free metering applications out there. A check
on this newsgroup will show that Bob Orban was promoting a free one
here not too long ago, and a lot of people liked it.

Yah yah, I know, my MCI console in the truck has nice analog
vu meters.
Am I that much of a dinosaur? g.

Yes, but if you're mixing to a digital format you need different meters
sitting on top of them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

WOUldn't know, but my question has more to do with wehther
folks might be better served to calibrate regular vu meters
to digital, i.e. 0vu = -12dbfs, etc. Whatever your house
standard happens to be.
tHen watch your analog vus.

This is sort of what I was getting at. I watch the analog meters on my
Soundcraft console whether I'm recording to analog tape (pretty rare
nowadays) or to something digital. I find them to be a much better guide
to the mix level than to watch that fast moving bar (but sometimes not
fast enough) on a digital peak meter, getting prepared to bang my head
when I had an "over." I set the gain on my DAT so that 0 VU corresponds
to -18 dBFS (my "house standard") and although there was an occasional
full scale blast now and then, it wasn't audible.

tHis is something imho used to happen all the time when
people did live broadcasting and direct to 2 track, etc.
DOn't people use tools for this sort of application that
provides this anymore?

Now people have been conditioned to think that average
ear-based-on-speech level isn't important because they can always
compress, limit, and normalize, but that they must avoid digital "overs"
at all cost lest they look like they don't know how to adjust their
gear. With a decent VU meter on real world program material, with proper
calibration and reasonable attention to the meter, you won't have overs.

Modern mastering of pop music (which is where most of today's gear is
aimed) is a different thing. The trend is to compress every track and
then compress the mix. A standard VU meter doesn't work well with this
kind of program material, so a digital peak meter is a better choice.
The application that I have in mind here is a broadcast mix with speech
and (mostly) acoustic music.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On 2008-07-27 (ScottDorsey) said:
WOUldn't know, but my question has more to do with wehther
folks might be better served to calibrate regular vu meters
to digital, i.e. 0vu = -12dbfs, etc. Whatever your house
standard happens to be.
Then watch your analog vus.
This is discussed in the FAQ... it was a big issue back in the early
1990s when people were transitioning from analogue to digital
infrastructure.
In the analogue world, meters are average-reading. In the digital
world, meters are peak-reading. They measure different things,
because what you need to know is different information.
True. I used to use -12 instead of -20 with a lot of the
material I was doing, including my own voice work as I had a
good idea how it would translate to digital. WHere source
was a bit more of a gamble I"d often set my system
calibrated to -20 dbfs of course, a bit more room to play
with. sOmetimes clients requested different standards for
test tone on dat etc. as well.

Consequently, if you use average-reading meters (and VU meters are
average-reading) in the digital world, you have to leave substantial
headroom, and you don't know where your clipping point is.
Again quite true, but with modern high sample rate recording
it isn't as important to get that close to the edge g.

It is normal practice to set metering so that -20 dBFS is 0 dBVU.
YEp, think I had one radio customer, and a frequent one back
in the day in Iowa that wanted -18. FOr my own multi-track
stuff a lot of time I found I could still be fine with -12
or so, but often gave myself more.
eSpecially being a blind man that could only utilize audible
vu.

This is something imho used to happen all the time when
people did live broadcasting and direct to 2 track, etc.
DOn't people use tools for this sort of application that
provides this anymore?
Yes, but they cost good money. And, a lot of people still use
outboard meters from guys like Dorrough and RME.
However, there are some free metering applications out there. A
check on this newsgroup will show that Bob Orban was promoting a
free one here not too long ago, and a lot of people liked it.
Yep, it was a plug-in for the pc or mac iirc. Might be
wrong there.

Yah yah, I know, my MCI console in the truck has nice analog
vu meters.
Am I that much of a dinosaur? g.
Yes, but if you're mixing to a digital format you need different
meters sitting on top of them.
Mixing to digital, with its own led meters on it. NO way to
make them audible g. My partner will have to watch them.

I still think that being a bit conservative on levels fed to
the recorder should keep me out of trouble. wHat do you
think?




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[[email protected]]

MIke wrote:

This is sort of what I was getting at. I watch the analog meters on
my Soundcraft console whether I'm recording to analog tape (pretty
rare nowadays) or to something digital. I find them to be a much
better guide to the mix level than to watch that fast moving bar
(but sometimes not fast enough) on a digital peak meter, getting
prepared to bang my head when I had an "over." I set the gain on my
DAT so that 0 VU corresponds to -18 dBFS (my "house standard") and
although there was an occasional full scale blast now and then, it
wasn't audible.
DOvetails with my experience as well. THink I just
described in a previous post my process for calibrating 0 vu
to digital metering. An added detriment for me is the fact
that there are no audible or tactile digital meters that I"m
aware of.

This is something imho used to happen all the time when
people did live broadcasting and direct to 2 track, etc.
DOn't people use tools for this sort of application that
provides this anymore?
Now people have been conditioned to think that average
ear-based-on-speech level isn't important because they can always
compress, limit, and normalize, but that they must avoid digital
"overs" at all cost lest they look like they don't know how to
adjust their gear. With a decent VU meter on real world program
material, with proper calibration and reasonable attention to the
meter, you won't have overs.
Yah yah, that's why a lot of the audio we hear doesn't sound
as good as it used to. THey're too busy letting the ears go
to sleep and using the processing afterword. Last time I
actually got to do any serious audio work which was before
Katrina my stuff still sounded good.

Modern mastering of pop music (which is where most of today's gear
is aimed) is a different thing. The trend is to compress every
track and then compress the mix. A standard VU meter doesn't work
well with this kind of program material, so a digital peak meter is
a better choice. The application that I have in mind here is a
broadcast mix with speech and (mostly) acoustic music.

YEp, which means I'd want something that acts a lot like a
vu. gUess I am a dinosaur in a lot of respects, but the
tools and techniques I learned even to adapt to digital
recording seem to work for me g.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Steve House wrote:

Check out Dorrough's meters for a standalone unit. They don't have
the steamguage types with a needle but they do offer them in your
choice of LED bargraphs or arcs

An outboard hardware meter is no problem, but it's not the solution I
was looking for.

I have the Roger Nichols Inspector free plug-in, and though I haven't
tried it, I suspect that the problem I was having with the other plug-in
meters is systemic. They work on the output, but not on the input,
probably because the driver for the audio hardware doesn't support it.


The RME stuff works on whatever you want it to, but that won't help you
either :-(

[Lucky[_3_]]

wrote:

Yah yah, I know, my MCI console in the truck has nice analog
vu meters.
Am I that much of a dinosaur? g.

I don't think so. What console do you have?

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

wrote:
Mike wrote:
just been playing with the "on line" computer here, not the studio
computer, so I'm using just the simple built-in AC97 sound card and
it's stock MME (or maybe WDM) driver.
WOUldn't know, but my question has more to do with wehther
folks might be better served to calibrate regular vu meters
to digital, i.e. 0vu = -12dbfs, etc. Whatever your house
standard happens to be.
tHen watch your analog vus.

This is disussed in the FAQ... it was a big issue back in the early 1990s
when people were transitioning from analogue to digital infrastructure.

In the analogue world, meters are average-reading. In the digital world,
meters are peak-reading. They measure different things, because what
you need to know is different information.

Just as a side note to this discussion, SoundForge does have what appears to my eye
a fairly good VU ballistics emulation option. When working in SF, I use that VU (in
extended mode +10 to -30 or some such; way better than +3 to -20) along side the
standard peak-reading meters provided, stretched large horz & vert on a second
monitor. I also use peak and valley holds. Makes for reasonably comprehensive
metering, at least in the 2-track realm.

Don't know if you can run it while recording, though; never recorded in SF.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[WillStG]

On Jul 27, 4:59*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
wrote:
WOUldn't know, but my question has more to do with wehther
folks might be better served to calibrate regular vu meters
to digital, i.e. 0vu = -12dbfs, etc. *Whatever your house
standard happens to be.
tHen watch your analog vus.

This is sort of what I was getting at. I watch the analog meters on my
Soundcraft console whether I'm recording to analog tape (pretty rare
nowadays) or to something digital. I find them to be a much better guide
to the mix level than to watch that fast moving bar (but sometimes not
fast enough) on a digital peak meter, getting prepared to bang my head
when I had an "over." I set the gain on my DAT so that 0 VU corresponds
to -18 dBFS (my "house standard") and although there was an occasional
full scale blast now and then, it wasn't audible.
)

Yeah, using your analog console meters is common in the "using
Protools as a tape machine" paradigm as well. Works fine as long as
you don't calibrate your 0VU levels too hot. If you do a lot of
analog consoles will clip at your "tape returns", this is another
reason 0VU = -20dBFS seems to be pretty much a standard these days,
(besides most newer digital console manufacturers using that standard,
from what I've seen anyway....)

Even with old 18 bit (16-ish) converters, I noticed a lot of
heavily multitracked classical work sounded better on an analog desk
when recorded with 0VU calibrated to -20 (as opposed to -18 or even
hotter), which was common with Rock/Pop/Hip Hop, etc. Seem a bit
ironic in retrospect, that the stuff that actually got soft was less
concerned about squeezing out every last bit all the time.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

wrote...

Yah yah, I know, my MCI console in the truck has nice analog
vu meters.

No VU/Peak selectable plasma meters ?!?

Am I that much of a dinosaur? g.

No comment. ;-)


DM

[Mike Rivers]

Frank Stearns wrote:

SoundForge does have what appears to my eye
a fairly good VU ballistics emulation option. When working in SF, I use that VU (in
extended mode +10 to -30 or some such; way better than +3 to -20) along side the
standard peak-reading meters provided, stretched large horz & vert on a second
monitor.

Don't know if you can run it while recording, though; never recorded in SF.

If you're talking about the meter that I have displayed along the right
hand edge of my screen (and I think you are) it's only active on
playback. If that worked when recording, I'd be happy. Is it possible?
Without being specific (hardware, driver, Windows, or application) this
seems to be a generic problem with "simple" DAW setups. It doesn't
matter to me precisely where the problem lies unless someone solves it.
But knowing that it won't go away until something generic changes, it's
easier for me to give up hope. g


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On 2008-07-27 said:
Yah yah, I know, my MCI console in the truck has nice analog
vu meters.
Am I that much of a dinosaur? g.
I don't think so. What console do you have?
Mci 600 series. sHould be paying a visit to Blevins next
week or tow for some refurb.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Neil Gould]

Hi Mike,

Mike Rivers wrote:
I must be really dumb here. I want a VU meter to watch while I'm
recording and I either can't find one or can't figure out how to make
it work. I've been using Sound Forge 8 as a playground. It does have a
little VU meter display but I'd like something that doesn't require
that amount of concentration. It has a large bargraph meter, but
that's only active on playback (unless making it work when recording
is something I haven't figured out - Sound Forge's documentation is
just a little lacking).

PSP has a plug-in meter that looks like it might work, but I don't
really understand plug-ins very well and I can't seem to figure out
how to apply it to the input, or even if this is possible in Sound
Forge. (Sound Forge's documentation is just a little lacking). What
do I need to know? Or is there another meter I could be looking at?
Ideally, I'd like a stand-alone (not plug-in) version that would work
on anything, and of course I want it to be free, at least in a usable
trial version. And it would be nice if it would work with Audacity or
other free/cheapware.

This is for instructive purposes so ultimately I want to be able to
tell people how to set it up who are even dumber than I about these
things. The idea here is that most DAW programs just don't have a
good way of showing people what's going in, so it's hard to explain
how to sensibly set the record level.

Any suggestions?

I read through most of the posts, and didn't see some points that may be
relevant to what you're trying to do. Mainly, what is it you want to meter?

If you want to know the signal level into the interface/sound card, meter
availability and effectiveness will depend on the interface's drivers. For
example, my RME card's drivers provide full I/O peark-reading meters for
each stage of their system. If this functionality does not exist at the
driver level, chances are that your meter app will only see the output of
the interface.

From your question, it seems that you want to meter the level ahead of
SoundForge, but as you discovered, your drivers don't provide the capability
to "split" the signal so that you can drive both a metering app and
Soundforge. This is also a driver issue, and may not be resolvable.

That leaves the "plugin" option, where as has been pointed out, it's
anybody's guess as to the signal flow. For training purposes, it may not
matter too much if you acknowledge that each trainee's system may differ
with regard to what the meters are showing.

My last suggestion would be to use an app for training that has meters you
like. I prefer CoolEdit/Audition, which has meters that are easy to grasp at
a glance, and the peak hold function makes it very easy to set up a mix.

Best,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

Neil Gould wrote:

I read through most of the posts, and didn't see some points that may be
relevant to what you're trying to do. Mainly, what is it you want to meter?

Sorry if this wasn't clear. I want to meter the record level, the
equivalent of the big VU meters on a tape deck.

If you want to know the signal level into the interface/sound card, meter
availability and effectiveness will depend on the interface's drivers. For
example, my RME card's drivers provide full I/O peark-reading meters for
each stage of their system. If this functionality does not exist at the
driver level, chances are that your meter app will only see the output of
the interface.

This is what I'm discovering. The Lynx L2 series driver incorporates a
mixer application (similar to the RME, I suspect) that has a meter next
to each fader. Same with the Mackie 1200F, for example. That provides
the metering functionality, but it's a visually cluttered interface. If
the meters were separate windows that could be placed somewhere else on
the screen with the mixer window minimized, that would work. But
apparently they're integrated with the mixer application. Whatever is
driving the meters in the mixer application isn't available to external
programs like the various stand-alone or plug-in meters that have been
mentioned here.

That leaves the "plugin" option, where as has been pointed out, it's
anybody's guess as to the signal flow. For training purposes, it may not
matter too much if you acknowledge that each trainee's system may differ
with regard to what the meters are showing.

It matters if some have systems that can be metered and others don't. g

My last suggestion would be to use an app for training that has meters you
like. I prefer CoolEdit/Audition, which has meters that are easy to grasp at
a glance, and the peak hold function makes it very easy to set up a mix.

That would work if I was giving a lecture, but when setting up someone
to, let's say, produce a radio program (OK, that's exactly the
application) I'd prefer not to say "you have to buy this program because
it has meters" if they already have a program that provides the
recording and editing functions.

This wouldn't be necessary, of course, if the mixers that these people
are likely to own (or are withing their budget) had decent metering -
meters with sufficient resolution, reasonable dynamic response, and
easily visible. See Richard's comment about his MCI console. But few
mixers these days come with a meter bridge that puts the meters up where
you can see them.

[soapbox mode ON] This is one more example of how equipment designers
are leaving important functions (or functions that they don't think are
important) to "someone else" so they can sell their product at an
attractive point. "Someone else" is here looking for a solution.
[soapbox mode OFF]



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Frank Vuotto]

The recording window in sf is a fixed size. If you lower your screen
resolution it will fill more of the screen.

For example, @ 1280 x 1024 the record dialog is somewhere around a
quarter of the screen but at 1024 x 768 it fills a bit under half the
screen.

I use ultramon, a multi monitor utility that lives in the sys tray and
enables on to change the display profile with 2 clicks.

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

[[email protected]]

On 2008-07-27 said:
Yeah, using your analog console meters is common in the "using
Protools as a tape machine" paradigm as well. Works fine as long as
you don't calibrate your 0VU levels too hot. If you do a lot of
analog consoles will clip at your "tape returns", this is another
reason 0VU 20dBFS seems to be pretty much a standard these days,
(besides most newer digital console manufacturers using that
standard, from what I've seen anyway....)
YEp, the way I've laways done it. IF multi-tracking pop
rock type stuff I'd usually be able to squeeze it up there
to 0vu = -12dbfs, but for most work around -18 to -20 was
just about right.
I'd calibrate with test tones, listen to some of the
material and have somebody with eyes watch digital meters
while I did a rehearse mix run through, if we were crowding
things a bit, recalibrate.

Even with old 18 bit (16-ish) converters, I noticed a lot of
heavily multitracked classical work sounded better on an analog
desk when recorded with 0VU calibrated to -20 (as opposed to -18 or
even hotter), which was common with Rock/Pop/Hip Hop, etc. Seem a
bit ironic in retrospect, that the stuff that actually got soft was
less concerned about squeezing out every last bit all the time.
THat's always been one of the beauties of digital, or so
I've been told since i bought my first dat machine. YEt
these days it's about squeezing out every last bit, if the
bits ain't turned on it's not happening. I don't understand
the thinking but ...





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Mike Rivers]

Neil Gould wrote:

Well, now this sounds like a conflict of purposes! ;-) Is it better to
have a metering plug-in if you don't know what it's metering?

If you have a meter somewhere in the recording chain, you can calibrate
the system so that the meter is meaningful wherever it is. That works
only if, when you make a level adjustment, it's ahead of the meter, of
course, but that'll work.

[soapbox mode ON] This is one more example of how equipment designers
are leaving important functions (or functions that they don't think
are important) to "someone else"

When was this otherwise?

My Ampex MM1200 had input level pots so that it could be matched to a
fairly wide range of console or mic preamp outputs. So did my TASCAM
80-8, and so does my DAT recorder. My Zoom H2, on the other hand, has a
record level control, but it won't keep the input stage from clipping,
even though the meters are reading on scale.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

SoundForge does have what appears to my eye
a fairly good VU ballistics emulation option. When working in SF, I use that VU (in
extended mode +10 to -30 or some such; way better than +3 to -20) along side the
standard peak-reading meters provided, stretched large horz & vert on a second
monitor.

Don't know if you can run it while recording, though; never recorded in SF.

If you're talking about the meter that I have displayed along the right
hand edge of my screen (and I think you are) it's only active on

Probably. You can also "tear off" this metering and set it outside the SF desktop.

playback. If that worked when recording, I'd be happy. Is it possible?
Without being specific (hardware, driver, Windows, or application) this
seems to be a generic problem with "simple" DAW setups. It doesn't
matter to me precisely where the problem lies unless someone solves it.
But knowing that it won't go away until something generic changes, it's
easier for me to give up hope. g

Hmm. Now that I think about it -- and in reading some of the other posts in this
thread -- you might be stuck. I seem to remember that recording in SF (the one or
two times I tried it) brought up a modal record dialog box. The fact that it was
modal probably points to the idea that back in the earlier days underlying DAW
compute power was severely limited. Even distracting the CPU to do a little
arithmetic for the meter display and then shoving the results out to the video
drivers was risky in that it might glitch the recording when those interrupts
occurred.

This should be easy now, with a modern DAW handling just two channels, but sometimes
old software internals don't get changed for a number of reasons.

Protools graphics can get pretty complex, and it seems to do a good job managing all
that winking and flashing stuff, but it is prioritized. Graphics will get jerky (or
even just stop updating) in order to maintain audio processing to the last possible
gasp.

But maybe someone has a better answer for you using SF.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
If you want to know the signal level into the interface/sound card,
meter availability and effectiveness will depend on the interface's
drivers. For example, my RME card's drivers provide full I/O
peark-reading meters for each stage of their system. If this
functionality does not exist at the driver level, chances are that
your meter app will only see the output of the interface.

This is what I'm discovering. The Lynx L2 series driver incorporates a
mixer application (similar to the RME, I suspect) that has a meter
next to each fader. Same with the Mackie 1200F, for example. That
provides the metering functionality, but it's a visually cluttered
interface. If the meters were separate windows that could be placed
somewhere else on the screen with the mixer window minimized, that
would work. But apparently they're integrated with the mixer
application. Whatever is driving the meters in the mixer application
isn't available to external programs like the various stand-alone or
plug-in meters that have been mentioned here.

I'm sure you know that these interface meters have functions that are
independent of the record level in the application. I don't know what the
Lynx mixer app is like, but even though the RME's is "full screen", with so
many levels to monitor and set, the individual controls are fairly tiny.

That leaves the "plugin" option, where as has been pointed out, it's
anybody's guess as to the signal flow. For training purposes, it may
not matter too much if you acknowledge that each trainee's system
may differ with regard to what the meters are showing.

It matters if some have systems that can be metered and others don't.
g

I'd think the most important factor is that the trainee knows the
difference. ;-)

My last suggestion would be to use an app for training that has
meters you like. I prefer CoolEdit/Audition, which has meters that
are easy to grasp at a glance, and the peak hold function makes it
very easy to set up a mix.

That would work if I was giving a lecture, but when setting up someone
to, let's say, produce a radio program (OK, that's exactly the
application) I'd prefer not to say "you have to buy this program
because it has meters" if they already have a program that provides
the recording and editing functions.

Well, now this sounds like a conflict of purposes! ;-) Is it better to
have a metering plug-in if you don't know what it's metering?

This wouldn't be necessary, of course, if the mixers that these people
are likely to own (or are withing their budget) had decent metering -
meters with sufficient resolution, reasonable dynamic response, and
easily visible. See Richard's comment about his MCI console. But few
mixers these days come with a meter bridge that puts the meters up
where you can see them.

I can't speak to that, having not purchased a "mixer" since the AW4416, but
I think that is sufficiently new-generation to say that it uses metering in
a different way than analog technologies, and for good reason.

[soapbox mode ON] This is one more example of how equipment designers
are leaving important functions (or functions that they don't think
are important) to "someone else" so they can sell their product at an
attractive point. "Someone else" is here looking for a solution.
[soapbox mode OFF]

When was this otherwise?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

Well, now this sounds like a conflict of purposes! ;-) Is it
better to have a metering plug-in if you don't know what it's
metering?

If you have a meter somewhere in the recording chain, you can
calibrate the system so that the meter is meaningful wherever it is.
That works only if, when you make a level adjustment, it's ahead of
the meter, of course, but that'll work.

As long as everything after the meter is linear. But, how would one know
other than trial and error and error and error?

[soapbox mode ON] This is one more example of how equipment
designers are leaving important functions (or functions that they
don't think are important) to "someone else"

When was this otherwise?

My Ampex MM1200 had input level pots so that it could be matched to a
fairly wide range of console or mic preamp outputs. So did my TASCAM
80-8, and so does my DAT recorder. My Zoom H2, on the other hand, has
a record level control, but it won't keep the input stage from
clipping, even though the meters are reading on scale.

This speaks to the above issue of knowing what the metering is displaying.
If you know that the meter is post-preamp/converter, there won't be much
control over a clean input level. That should dictate a certain approach to
using the device. I don't know that adding a pot ahead of the input would
make matters that much better.

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Hmm. Now that I think about it -- and in reading some of the other posts in this
thread -- you might be stuck. I seem to remember that recording in SF (the one or
two times I tried it) brought up a modal record dialog box. The fact that it was
modal probably points to the idea that back in the earlier days underlying DAW
compute power was severely limited. Even distracting the CPU to do a little
arithmetic for the meter display and then shoving the results out to the video
drivers was risky in that it might glitch the recording when those interrupts
occurred.

Not being a programmer, I'm not sure what "modal" means in this context,
but I do still believe in the old school, that the more you make the
computer do that distracts from its primary purpose (at the moment) of
recording makes recording more risky. But brute force can give a lot of
headroom for such distractions. While all of these programs seem to have
some sort of metering while they're recording, not all of them have the
same meter for playback. In the analog world, meters are expensive, so
they do what they have to do in order to make the same meter work all
the time.

This should be easy now, with a modern DAW handling just two channels, but sometimes
old software internals don't get changed for a number of reasons.

There's a certain value to "don't fix it if it isn't broken." I'm just a
bit surprised that there aren't hooks that a meter can connect to when
the time comes that there's enough horsepower for it.

But maybe someone has a better answer for you using SF.

I'm not particularly wedded to Sound Forge, that's just an example. But
I can't use a pretty meter for record level in Audacity, or Fast Edit,
or WaveLab, or Sequoia.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Neil Gould wrote:

If you have a meter somewhere in the recording chain, you can
calibrate the system so that the meter is meaningful wherever it is.

As long as everything after the meter is linear. But, how would one know
other than trial and error and error and error?

Measurement. You figure it out, you calibrate it, you leave it that way.

This speaks to the above issue of knowing what the metering is displaying.
If you know that the meter is post-preamp/converter, there won't be much
control over a clean input level.

In the case of the Zoom recorder, no there isn't. You have to know that
if the "Record Level" control needs to be set below 100 in order to keep
the meter below full scale, you'll be clipping. So you use the pad
switch first, and then turn the level control up if you need to. In my
case study, the DAW will be fed from a hardware mixer. So you determine
how much level going in makes the meter read full scale, verify that the
A/D converter isn't clipping, and then you can use the mixer's output
level to set the record level according to the meter.

Now I suppose you're wondering why not just use the meter on the mixer
and calibrate the A/D converter to it? Because cheap mixers have crappy
meters that aren't very meaningful. Also, cheap mixers don't have meter
bridges, so you have to look down at the mixer in order to even see the
meter.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Les Cargill]

Mike Rivers wrote:
I must be really dumb here. I want a VU meter to watch while I'm
recording and I either can't find one or can't figure out how to make it
work. I've been using Sound Forge 8 as a playground. It does have a
little VU meter display but I'd like something that doesn't require that
amount of concentration. It has a large bargraph meter, but that's only
active on playback (unless making it work when recording is something I
haven't figured out - Sound Forge's documentation is just a little
lacking).

PSP has a plug-in meter that looks like it might work, but I don't
really understand plug-ins very well and I can't seem to figure out how
to apply it to the input, or even if this is possible in Sound Forge.
(Sound Forge's documentation is just a little lacking). What do I need
to know? Or is there another meter I could be looking at? Ideally, I'd
like a stand-alone (not plug-in) version that would work on anything,
and of course I want it to be free, at least in a usable trial version.
And it would be nice if it would work with Audacity or other
free/cheapware.

This is for instructive purposes so ultimately I want to be able to tell
people how to set it up who are even dumber than I about these things.
The idea here is that most DAW programs just don't have a good way of
showing people what's going in, so it's hard to explain how to sensibly
set the record level.

Any suggestions?







This helps not-at-all, but Cool Edit 96 had a useable meter. Maybe it
was brought forward to Audacity; I don't know.

You had to go to the "Options" menu to enable it.


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Les Cargill wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
I must be really dumb here. I want a VU meter to watch while I'm
recording and I either can't find one or can't figure out how to make
it work. I've been using Sound Forge 8 as a playground. It does have a
little VU meter display but I'd like something that doesn't require
that amount of concentration. It has a large bargraph meter, but
that's only active on playback (unless making it work when recording
is something I haven't figured out - Sound Forge's documentation is
just a little lacking).

PSP has a plug-in meter that looks like it might work, but I don't
really understand plug-ins very well and I can't seem to figure out
how to apply it to the input, or even if this is possible in Sound
Forge. (Sound Forge's documentation is just a little lacking). What do
I need to know? Or is there another meter I could be looking at?
Ideally, I'd like a stand-alone (not plug-in) version that would work
on anything, and of course I want it to be free, at least in a usable
trial version. And it would be nice if it would work with Audacity or
other free/cheapware.

This is for instructive purposes so ultimately I want to be able to
tell people how to set it up who are even dumber than I about these
things. The idea here is that most DAW programs just don't have a good
way of showing people what's going in, so it's hard to explain how to
sensibly set the record level.

Any suggestions?







This helps not-at-all, but Cool Edit 96 had a useable meter. Maybe it
was brought forward to Audacity; I don't know.

You had to go to the "Options" menu to enable it.


--
Les Cargill

Correction:
I mean Adobe Audition, not Audacity. A quick browse of the website
reveals ... nothing.

--
Les Cargill

[John Williamson]

Les Cargill wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
I must be really dumb here. I want a VU meter to watch while I'm
recording and I either can't find one or can't figure out how to make
it work. I've been using Sound Forge 8 as a playground. It does have
a little VU meter display but I'd like something that doesn't require
that amount of concentration. It has a large bargraph meter, but
that's only active on playback (unless making it work when recording
is something I haven't figured out - Sound Forge's documentation is
just a little lacking).

PSP has a plug-in meter that looks like it might work, but I don't
really understand plug-ins very well and I can't seem to figure out
how to apply it to the input, or even if this is possible in Sound
Forge. (Sound Forge's documentation is just a little lacking). What
do I need to know? Or is there another meter I could be looking at?
Ideally, I'd like a stand-alone (not plug-in) version that would work
on anything, and of course I want it to be free, at least in a usable
trial version. And it would be nice if it would work with Audacity or
other free/cheapware.

This is for instructive purposes so ultimately I want to be able to
tell people how to set it up who are even dumber than I about these
things. The idea here is that most DAW programs just don't have a
good way of showing people what's going in, so it's hard to explain
how to sensibly set the record level.

Any suggestions?







This helps not-at-all, but Cool Edit 96 had a useable meter. Maybe it
was brought forward to Audacity; I don't know.

You had to go to the "Options" menu to enable it.


--
Les Cargill

Correction:
I mean Adobe Audition, not Audacity. A quick browse of the website
reveals ... nothing.

The meter in Audacity can be used to monitor an input, & can, be set to
float at any size you want up to full screen, at least in the Windows
version.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Mike RIvers wrote:
Now I suppose you're wondering why not just use the meter on the
mixer and calibrate the A/D converter to it? Because cheap mixers
have crappy meters that aren't very meaningful. Also, cheap mixers
don't have meter bridges, so you have to look down at the mixer in
order to even see the meter.
And there we have it folks. Poor to unusable meters while
working. HEy one advantage I had with my little tactile
vibratory meter sitting in my shirt pocket g.
sEt the level at which it vibrates.

sTill for your average sighted person, a situation not made
for level monitoring while working. YOu can figure that the
person this is aimed at is probably going to be using a
cheap mixer feeding a sound card. HEnce MIke's trying to
find away around their problem.

THank the good Lord for good metering where eyes are likely
to see it on my old console g.
Even the blind man's eyes can see these from the operating
position g.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Mike Rivers]

Neil Gould wrote:

Perhaps you are expecting too much for too little. What else is there to
look at in the radio post environment -- the wall?

The wall is a great place for meters. g And you're right, I'm looking
for a shoestring solution to encourage people to set up a system that
they can work with, and that won't turn them off because it's too
awkward, too complicated, or too expensive.

in that environment a meter bridge can be handy, and while they may not
be built-in, I have seen monitor displays for some of the cheap
mixer/recorder combos, so I'd expect that a better mixer might come with
that capability as well. But, as I said earlier, I haven't looked lately.

They keep getting worse. I think the problem feeds itself. The meters on
the panel aren't useful so people don't use them, so the manufacturers
make them worse and worse since they know people aren't using them anyway.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

John Williamson wrote:

The meter in Audacity can be used to monitor an input, & can, be set to
float at any size you want up to full screen, at least in the Windows
version.

I know that Audacity's meter works to monitor the input. It's a little
inconvenient since if you want it to indicate without recording, you
have to click on it every time. Once you start rolling and stop, you
have to click on it again in order to get it to indicate while stopped.
I have version 1.2.4 here. Maybe I should look at a newer version to see
if it works any differently.

Thanks for the tip on floating the meter window. I never noticed that
option, but it's helpful.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

If you have a meter somewhere in the recording chain, you can
calibrate the system so that the meter is meaningful wherever it is.

As long as everything after the meter is linear. But, how would one
know other than trial and error and error and error?

Measurement. You figure it out, you calibrate it, you leave it that
way.

So... we agree.

Now I suppose you're wondering why not just use the meter on the mixer
and calibrate the A/D converter to it? Because cheap mixers have
crappy meters that aren't very meaningful. Also, cheap mixers don't
have meter bridges, so you have to look down at the mixer in order to
even see the meter.

Perhaps you are expecting too much for too little. What else is there to
look at in the radio post environment -- the wall? OTOH, a mixer for live
recording should be selected based on the features needed for that purpose,
and in that environment a meter bridge can be handy, and while they may not
be built-in, I have seen monitor displays for some of the cheap
mixer/recorder combos, so I'd expect that a better mixer might come with
that capability as well. But, as I said earlier, I haven't looked lately.

Neil

[Richard Crowley]

"Les Cargill" wrote ...
This helps not-at-all, but Cool Edit 96 had a useable meter. Maybe it
was brought forward to Audacity; I don't know.

As an ongoing user of both Syntrillium CoolEdit and Adobe
Audition, I can confirm that the excellent meter feature remains.

You had to go to the "Options" menu to enable it.

The meter is selectable (along with over a dozen other window
elements) via the "View" drop-down menu. Many of the windows
elements are re-sizable and/or re-positionable.

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-07-29, Mike Rivers wrote:

I know that Audacity's meter works to monitor the input. It's a little
inconvenient since if you want it to indicate without recording, you
have to click on it every time. Once you start rolling and stop, you
have to click on it again in order to get it to indicate while stopped.
I have version 1.2.4 here. Maybe I should look at a newer version to see
if it works any differently.

That seems to show different things by different colours - dark and
pale. (Plus IIRC there's the peak hold and the clip indicator on the
end).

What do the different colour densities show? Slower and faster acting?
Percieved average and peak? Though dark is always somewhere below pale.

- Richard