Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LUFS
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LUFS
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LUFS
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
LUFS
On 16/04/2017 5:44 PM, geoff wrote:
On 16/04/2017 12:31 AM, wrote: 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 ? What does it matter? Would you be happy to judge the qualities of a fine painting through dirty smudged scratched sunglasses ? Would it matter to a blind man? Trevor. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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. |