"Randy Yates" > wrote in message
> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> I just want to reiterate this again. Unless it is built
>> to a known spec, unless it says "LUFS" on the averaging
>> digital meter, or "VU" on the averaging analogue meter,
>> then it's not a real measurement, it is only usable for
>> qualitative estimation, and it is not to be counted on.
> That's a pretty sad state of affairs for pro audio, don't
> you think Scott?
Not at all. Pro audio is still heavily dependent on tools that do not
totally perform in accordance with simple neat, precise theories.
That's one reason why most of us consider audio to be both a science and an
art. The science is in the things that do perform in accordance with simple,
neat, precise theories which abound but does not include everything. The
art is in how we manage the many tools and practices that do not totally
perform in accordance with simple neat, precise theories, as used. Things
like microphones and loudspeakers.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|dBFS||Randy Yates||Pro Audio||233||November 30th 10 07:45 AM|
|dBFS||Arny Krueger||Tech||0||November 22nd 10 01:17 PM|
|dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ?||Jakeman||Pro Audio||2||November 21st 04 09:00 PM|
|dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ?||Jakeman||Pro Audio||0||November 21st 04 06:18 PM|
|Classical program ff = ?dbFS||WillStG||Pro Audio||21||November 15th 03 11:51 AM|