Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] gilorms@outlook.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default LUFS

Everybody's "signed-up" for this, seemingly, but is anybody *actually* broadcasting with this system?

Even BBC R3 (the classical music station) doesn't appear to be using it.

I've started experimenting but I'm still sending off tracks made in old style max RMS (or whatever it is/was).

--
gilorms.com
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default LUFS

wrote:
Everybody's "signed-up" for this, seemingly, but is anybody *actually* broadcasting with this system?

Even BBC R3 (the classical music station) doesn't appear to be using it.

I've started experimenting but I'm still sending off tracks made in old style max RMS (or whatever it is/was).


Well, the idea is that the actual levels you're getting on the air, shouldn't
be any different. You're still setting modulation for peak level and then
managing the loudness once you have the peaks set, like you always did with
VU meters. You just have a different way of measuring loudness.

The question that needs to be asked is whether anyone is following a
particular LUFS level for broadcast... and that I can't answer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default LUFS

Scott Dorsey:

If you peak normalize two sources, one
with a high crest factor and one with a
low crest factor, the one with low crest
factor will most likely sound louder to
your ears.

Normalizing to, say -16 or -20LUFs,
means that the source with the lower
CF might not peak anywhere near 0
DBFS.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jjaj1998@netscape.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default LUFS

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:50:05 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Everybody's "signed-up" for this, seemingly, but is anybody *actually* broadcasting with this system?

Even BBC R3 (the classical music station) doesn't appear to be using it.

I've started experimenting but I'm still sending off tracks made in old style max RMS (or whatever it is/was).

--
gilorms.com


You want to get to RMS level, no "normalizing" (whatever that means) will accomplish that. Trim those peaks, they do nothing for audio quality.

See, many don't listen. People listen to "radio" at work, where they keep the volume low. YOU need to compensate for that, otherwise, they'll think you went off the "air".

Jack
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default LUFS

In article ,
wrote:

If you peak normalize two sources, one
with a high crest factor and one with a
low crest factor, the one with low crest
factor will most likely sound louder to
your ears.


Right, and the VU meter will indicate this. The VU meter was intended to
measure perceived loudness, and although it doesn't do all that well doing
so with non-voice signals, it's still pretty good for making rough judgements
about that.

Normalizing to, say -16 or -20LUFs,
means that the source with the lower
CF might not peak anywhere near 0
DBFS.


Right, but you've got two meters, one measuring LUFS and one measuring peak
level. You set the peak level to match the broadcast requirements given you
by the ITU. But now, in the New European Era, you'd be setting the average
LUFS level to match the broadcast requirements given you by the EBU. So all
the stations on the dial should have more or less the same perceived loudness
as well as the same peak levels.

Yes, if you did no processing, just moved a gain control at the transmitter,
you wouldn't be meeting your peak envelope if you were getting the correct
loudness. But we live in the age of digital processing, where we can do some
processing to bring the loudness up. BUT, because of the standard, it will
not be to anyone's advantage to overprocess because you can only bring the
loudness up so far before you'll have to bring it back down to meet the EBU
requirements.

The whole idea here, as detailed in the EBU documents, is to prevent the sort
of FM loudness wars that we got in the US.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default LUFS

"Yes, if you did no processing, just moved a gain control at the transmitter,
you wouldn't be meeting your peak envelope if you were getting the correct
loudness. "

Does that imply that all radio stations
must constantly fill their peak envelope,
regardless of average/RMS level?
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default LUFS

wrote:
"Yes, if you did no processing, just moved a gain control at the transmitter,
you wouldn't be meeting your peak envelope if you were getting the correct
loudness. "

Does that imply that all radio stations
must constantly fill their peak envelope,
regardless of average/RMS level?


Yes. Let's say you're a classical station that is playing a recording
with very wide dynamics and minimal processing. You set the levels so
the crescendo hits 0DBFS, then your ppp parts may be 30dBFS down from
that.

If you -didn't- hit the peaks at 0dBFS, then your ppp parts would be
even _farther_ down and that would be bad.

In reality, the noise floor on FM being what it is, you need a little
bit of compression to bring those ppp parts up another 10 or 15 dB.
That might be served by manual gainriding or by an AGC compressor.

Now... this is actually kind of oversimplified but it's exactly what
happens with mono FM broadcast. The channel is limited by deviation
which limits your peak baseband audio level, and so you want to have
your loudest parts hitting those peaks so your soft parts don't disappear.

With stereo FM it gets a little bit more complicated because you are
limited by deviation which limits the total _stereo composite_ audio
level, and so you can juggle maximum levels vs. maximum stereo width
back and forth as well. I gather the EBU doesn't care so much about
that because they aren't living in a world where people are trying to
eke out every possible dB like stations in the US are.

But the _peak_ levels are set by the channel characteristics, the _average_
levels are set by program directors.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default LUFS



But the _peak_ levels are set by the channel characteristics, the _average_
levels are set by program directors.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


and the channel characteristics are set by the FCC (in the US)

yep, any modern FM radio station is hitting 100% deviation regularly... like every syllable.

They can't legally go over and nobody goes under for any significant length of time.


the variation between loud stations and not so loud stations is simply how regularly and how often they hit that 100%.

It is interesting to hook an oscilloscope directly to the discriminator of a receiver (before the demphasis) and see how it is smashed against the legal limit. Every station hits the limit, the variation in perceived loudness corresponds more to the DENSITY of the modulation rather than the actual upper limit. They all have the same upper limit set by the FCC.

m


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default LUFS

Scott Dorsey:

So does any of that explain the following
difference: On a CD of my favorite
classic rock group, the snare and kick
sound like, well, a snare and kick -
albeit slightly compressed - but still
crisp and impactful. When I hear
the same song on the local classic
rock station, the drums sound
really mushy, distorted, and the
snare has a'crunch' to it instead
of a clear crack.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default LUFS

wrote:
Scott Dorsey:

So does any of that explain the following
difference: On a CD of my favorite
classic rock group, the snare and kick
sound like, well, a snare and kick -
albeit slightly compressed - but still
crisp and impactful. When I hear
the same song on the local classic
rock station, the drums sound
really mushy, distorted, and the
snare has a'crunch' to it instead
of a clear crack.


No, it really has nothing to do with it.

We're talking here about metering standards, not processing standards.
LUFS is a different standard for _measuring_ average levels.

The fact that you're listening to some station where average levels are
held to only a few dB lower than peak levels has little to do with how
you measure the levels.

And the overcompression problem you describe basically doesn't exist in
countries where the EBU standards are being promoted anyway.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default LUFS

Mike Rivers wrote: "And they start their records in the middle so there's
never a moment of silence. "

LMAO! If you're talking about the
5-15 seconds they edit off for the
'radio' cut, I get your point. Not
to mention songs like 'Hang On,
Sloopy', where the entire second
verse is cut.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default LUFS

geoff wrote: "- hide quoted text -
On 14/04/2017 10:04 AM, wrote:
Scott Dorsey:

So does any of that explain the following
difference: On a CD of my favorite
classic rock group, the snare and kick
sound like, well, a snare and kick -
albeit slightly compressed - but still
crisp and impactful. When I hear
the same song on the local classic
rock station, the drums sound
really mushy, distorted, and the
snare has a'crunch' to it instead
of a clear crack.



What are you listening on ?

geoff "

What does it matter?
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default LUFS

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 14/04/2017 10:04 AM, wrote:
What are you listening on ?

geoff


Stop feeding the tard. And his dead hobbyhorse.



  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default LUFS

geoff wrote: "
Would you be happy to judge the qualities of a fine painting through
dirty smudged scratched sunglasses ?

geoff "


What do you THINK I'm listening on
when I made that comparison? A
boombox?? No - a decent component
stereo system of course. Common
sense.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"