Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/20/2010 3:53 PM, rickman wrote:
I don't recall any such restriction on N. Certainly the measurement has just as much meaning with N = 1 as any greater N. Think of it as a limit as N approaches 1 then. The point is that it is as valid a measurement for a single point as it is for many points. It represents the equivalent voltage that would produce the same power as DC of the same voltage. Consider the effective value of RMS. It's the amount of heat can be produced by the electrical energy. If you have only one sample, no matter how high it is, do you really think it will warm up your coffee? -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:26:52 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote: On 11/20/2010 3:53 PM, rickman wrote: I don't recall any such restriction on N. Certainly the measurement has just as much meaning with N = 1 as any greater N. Think of it as a limit as N approaches 1 then. The point is that it is as valid a measurement for a single point as it is for many points. It represents the equivalent voltage that would produce the same power as DC of the same voltage. Consider the effective value of RMS. It's the amount of heat can be produced by the electrical energy. If you have only one sample, no matter how high it is, do you really think it will warm up your coffee? It will if you have a similarly tiny sample of coffee. I think you are confusing power and energy here. d |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/21/2010 5:22 AM, davew wrote:
This thread is about dBFS. I don't think that it really is, though that's the only clue we have from the header. Another clue was a screen shot of some computer-generated bargraphs which were labeled "RMS." I think that the troll is asking how it comes up with the length of that bar. That's a legitimate question, but I doubt that there's anyone here, with the possible exception of Dick Pierce, who has ever been close enough to the design of such a program to have an idea of what assumptions and formula the programmer used. Hence, the conclusion that, as an indicator of how loud the audio sounds (relative to other chunks of audio, if you don't adjust the volume control), it has some meaning. But as a representation of a voltage, number of bits in use at a particular time, or as an indication of how much headroom is available, its value is only in the way that the user interprets the bargraph reading and how it's changing over time. This is actually no different than the correct way to use a VU meter. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/20/2010 6:16 PM, Ian Bell wrote:
dBFS is NOT a measurement method (peak or rms) but a specification for a signal level. Unlike dBm, dBu and dBV is has NO SPECIFIC PHYSICAL VALUE - it is simply the largest value that a digital system can represent. That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that when you know the relationship between full scale and output level or input sensitivity, dBFS has a physical meaning. However, it's more useful to specify a voltage (dBu etc.) than dBFS when working with actual useful digital audio hardware. I've been trying to find out what the original poster's real question is, but he seems to either not be sure or just refuses to answer, rather enjoying saying "no, that's not it" rather than formulate a question that isn't abstract. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/21/2010 2:01 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
I sometimes record live high-school orchestra concerts. Because it is hard to know the level, I record 24 bit, then find the peak and RMS of each track. Then I figure out how many bits to scale each track by so that peaks stay below FS, and they should sound about right together. Well, the idea is that they should sound about the same level, such that one shouldn't want to run up and change the volume control for each track. Oh, you mean mixing in the sense of "mix tape" rather than mixing a multitrack recording down to stereo. Well, of course the listener shouldn't have to run up and change the volume control, but, too, he shouldn't be subject to a flat program unless he isn't actually listening to it. Elevator music is good for that. Concerts, and even interesting radio programming don't work that way, however. If there's risk of hearing or speaker damage when switching between songs in a program, sure, that should be fixed, and normalizing to equal peak level can work. But unless each piece of the program has very little dynamic range (which isn't all that unusual in pop music today) you'll still have differences in perceived loudness. I don't think I could do that very well just listening to them, trying to memorize the average level over a 15 minute track. That's not the way you do it. You consider how annoyed you are when going from song to song. This is the money crop for mastering engineers. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/20/2010 6:16 PM, Ian Bell wrote: dBFS is NOT a measurement method (peak or rms) but a specification for a signal level. Unlike dBm, dBu and dBV is has NO SPECIFIC PHYSICAL VALUE - it is simply the largest value that a digital system can represent. That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that when you know the relationship between full scale and output level or input sensitivity, dBFS has a physical meaning. However, it's more useful to specify a voltage (dBu etc.) than dBFS when working with actual useful digital audio hardware. I've been trying to find out what the original poster's real question is, but he seems to either not be sure or just refuses to answer, rather enjoying saying "no, that's not it" rather than formulate a question that isn't abstract. He is also getting confused between the definition of signal level (like dBu for example) and the means of measuring a signal level like RMS or peak. Cheers Ian |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
So, in this "precise definition" how long does one integrate when measuring a practical signal? Can one always expect results to be independent of integration time? You integrate for as long as the signal lasts. That is, if you have a digital file, there is one and only one RMS average value for the whole file. If you keep a running average or a windowed average, what you are displaying is not a standard RMS value. Average-reading meters display running averages with different weighting and averaging times. Consequently, standards for average-reading meters have to list things like the time constants so the meter ballistics will all be the same. The VU meter spec is very specfic and it details precisely how the averaging is to be done. Likewise the BS.1771 spec for digital averaging meters. Most DAW average meters (some of which incorrectly call themselves RMS meters) use arbitrary averaging and consequently they do not agree with one another. You cannot say they are "dB-with-respect-to-something-specific" at all. They are just useless flashing lights that provide little real information until you know precisely how they are weighted. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/21/2010 7:28 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
It will if you have a similarly tiny sample of coffee. I think you are confusing power and energy here. Think again, smart boy. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010 13:14:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Eric Jacobsen wrote: So, in this "precise definition" how long does one integrate when measuring a practical signal? Can one always expect results to be independent of integration time? You integrate for as long as the signal lasts. That is, if you have a digital file, there is one and only one RMS average value for the whole file. What if it's a continuous stream of digital data from a data collection or continuous control system? Can you not compute the power level until it's shut off and the signal stops? Right. It's not a continuous measurement, it's a scalar. If you keep a running average or a windowed average, what you are displaying is not a standard RMS value. What is a "standard" RMS value? Which standard? There is only one standard. RMS is something very specific, with a mathematical definition. Look in the ITT Radio Engineer's Handbook if you don't believe me. Average-reading meters display running averages with different weighting and averaging times. Consequently, standards for average-reading meters have to list things like the time constants so the meter ballistics will all be the same. Exactly. For uniformity there has to be further detail determined and settled upon and communicated. Just saying "RMS average" is not enough to convey a specific repeatable technique. It's close enough in many cases, but not in some cases where the fine details matter. RMS average is a specific and repeatable technique and it produces a single scalar value from a data stream. There are a lot of manufacturers who call various moving average systems "RMS." You can call your dog a cat, too. But that doesn't make him a cat. And he won't eat the cat food. The VU meter spec is very specfic and it details precisely how the averaging is to be done. Likewise the BS.1771 spec for digital averaging meters. That's one example of a detailed spec. It is not anything close to universal. It's not universal at all. Hardly anyone uses it. This is the problem. Most DAW average meters (some of which incorrectly call themselves RMS meters) use arbitrary averaging and consequently they do not agree with one another. You cannot say they are "dB-with-respect-to-something-specific" at all. They are just useless flashing lights that provide little real information until you know precisely how they are weighted. 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. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Scott Dorsey wrote:
[...] ... You can call your dog a cat, too. But that doesn't make him a cat. And he won't eat the cat food. He will if he thinks the cat wants it. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/21/2010 3:11 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
there are an infinite number of different ways to calculate RMS, and unless it's specified, you won't know what was done. Oh, no, there's only one way to CALCULATE the RMS value - the square root of the sum of the squares. But there are many ways to MEASURE the values from which you're calculating it. Most significant is how the voltage varies with time and how many measurements to you include in the calculation over how much time. If the program performs the calculation correctly, you can get good results from a DAW that's capable of displaying RMS amplitude over whatever length of time you choose - an entire file, a selected portion of it, even just a couple of cycles. It has plenty of samples to work from. In this case, the RMS amplitude is almost always expressed as dBFS because that's what the program knows. If it's an analog measurement, you read the meter for as long as you want to watch it, take an eyeball average if the waveform isn't constant, and use that number for whatever you wish. As has been discussed before, many voltmeters are calibrated assuming that you're measuring a sine wave. True RMS meters actually do some calculations. Some use integrators. some even use thermocouples. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:45:37 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote: On 11/21/2010 7:28 AM, Don Pearce wrote: It will if you have a similarly tiny sample of coffee. I think you are confusing power and energy here. Think again, smart boy. Thought again - just in case. No change. d |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In comp.dsp Mike Rivers wrote:
(snip, I wrote) (snip, and previous snip, on record levels) Well, the idea is that they should sound about the same level, such that one shouldn't want to run up and change the volume control for each track. Oh, you mean mixing in the sense of "mix tape" rather than mixing a multitrack recording down to stereo. Well, of course the listener shouldn't have to run up and change the volume control, but, too, he shouldn't be subject to a flat program unless he isn't actually listening to it. Elevator music is good for that. Concerts, and even interesting radio programming don't work that way, however. Yes. The level I am considering is per track. One that I have done had some tracks a symphony orchestra and others a flute quintet, three harps, or sometimes just vocals. If there's risk of hearing or speaker damage when switching between songs in a program, sure, that should be fixed, and normalizing to equal peak level can work. But unless each piece of the program has very little dynamic range (which isn't all that unusual in pop music today) you'll still have differences in perceived loudness. Yes, so I usually don't want to go for just peaks. It isn't (usually) pop, but vocal music has much less dynamic range than the symphony orchestra. (snip) That's not the way you do it. You consider how annoyed you are when going from song to song. This is the money crop for mastering engineers. There is no money in this, though. -- glen |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
(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? -- Randy Yates % "Midnight, on the water... Digital Signal Labs % I saw... the ocean's daughter." % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head' http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
The point being, then, that there is not a single, precise definition. In the discrete case n can change and in the continuous case the integration time can change. * As Robert said quite a while back, there are an infinite number of different ways to calculate RMS, and unless it's specified, you won't know what was done. I suspect this was the source of Randy's initial question regarding dBFS, since it is pretty ambiguous. Not really. At least that wasn't the most important question in my mind. The question in my mind is this: * 1. How is dBFS defined? If there is no formal definition, then * how is it used? Specifically, what I was wondering was this: * 1. Is dBFS an instantaneous measurement or some sort of average? * 2. If dBFS is some sort of average, what type? RMS? RMS sine? RMS * square? Averaged magnitude? Any of an infinite number of ways to * define it? I admit there is some ambiguity built into the question itself since, in my understanding and teaching, a dB (of WHATEVER) can always be traced back to a ratio of two powers, and power, as I understand it, is always an average [Note 1]. Note that this "traceback path" to power can be constructed even for the digital dBFS by assuming a conversion factor (x Volts / units) and a load impedance (probably 1 ohm). But I am allowing for the possibility of an "instantaneous" definition/usage. Also, let me acknowledge that many folks have already answered my question. But just to clarify YOUR (implied) question, Eric, (which is, "What was Randy's initial question?") and possibly others that still don't understand what and why I'm asking, here it is. --Randy [1] I acknowledge that, as others have mentioned, I could be wrong here, but I currently remain unconvinced. -- Randy Yates * * * * * * * * * * *% "She tells me that she l dB is also sometimes used for Voltage ratios as in dBmV and in this case it is RMS Voltage so we have come full circle... :-) Standard definitions for RMS apply only to time invariant waveforms like steady tones or steady square waves etc. There is no standard for RMS for time varying signals ... Mark |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Mark writes:
The point being, then, that there is not a single, precise definition. In the discrete case n can change and in the continuous case the integration time can change. Â* As Robert said quite a while back, there are an infinite number of different ways to calculate RMS, and unless it's specified, you won't know what was done. I suspect this was the source of Randy's initial question regarding dBFS, since it is pretty ambiguous. Not really. At least that wasn't the most important question in my mind. The question in my mind is this: Â* 1. How is dBFS defined? If there is no formal definition, then Â* how is it used? Specifically, what I was wondering was this: Â* 1. Is dBFS an instantaneous measurement or some sort of average? Â* 2. If dBFS is some sort of average, what type? RMS? RMS sine? RMS Â* square? Averaged magnitude? Any of an infinite number of ways to Â* define it? I admit there is some ambiguity built into the question itself since, in my understanding and teaching, a dB (of WHATEVER) can always be traced back to a ratio of two powers, and power, as I understand it, is always an average [Note 1]. Note that this "traceback path" to power can be constructed even for the digital dBFS by assuming a conversion factor (x Volts / units) and a load impedance (probably 1 ohm). But I am allowing for the possibility of an "instantaneous" definition/usage. Also, let me acknowledge that many folks have already answered my question. But just to clarify YOUR (implied) question, Eric, (which is, "What was Randy's initial question?") and possibly others that still don't understand what and why I'm asking, here it is. --Randy [1] I acknowledge that, as others have mentioned, I could be wrong here, but I currently remain unconvinced. -- Randy Yates Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*% "She tells me that she l dB is also sometimes used for Voltage ratios as in dBmV and in this case it is RMS Voltage so we have come full circle... :-) dbV is also another. However, both of these can be traced back to power with some assumptions. Also, as has been pointed out, if these types of measurements were only voltage, why was the multiplier changed from 10 to 20? Surely we must agree that the prefix "deci" means by ten! Standard definitions for RMS apply only to time invariant waveforms like steady tones or steady square waves etc. There is no standard for RMS for time varying signals ... I understand that there will be some ambiguity for such measurements. That's not my primary concern. My primary concern is what the target bogie is: (the theoretical ideal) RMS or whatever else. -- Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like Digital Signal Labs % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'" % http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 21 Nov 2010 15:44:14 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Eric Jacobsen wrote: On 21 Nov 2010 13:14:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Eric Jacobsen wrote: So, in this "precise definition" how long does one integrate when measuring a practical signal? Can one always expect results to be independent of integration time? You integrate for as long as the signal lasts. That is, if you have a digital file, there is one and only one RMS average value for the whole file. What if it's a continuous stream of digital data from a data collection or continuous control system? Can you not compute the power level until it's shut off and the signal stops? Right. It's not a continuous measurement, it's a scalar. The point was that often a power measurement is needed in real time for a continuing signal. You can't wait until the system stops to get a measurement. n can always be a subset of N. If you keep a running average or a windowed average, what you are displaying is not a standard RMS value. What is a "standard" RMS value? Which standard? There is only one standard. RMS is something very specific, with a mathematical definition. Look in the ITT Radio Engineer's Handbook if you don't believe me. No, there are tons of standards. Some agree, some don't. That's the point. The mathematical defnitions of RMS are well know, and none (that are worth looking at) define the length of time used for integration of a non-periodic signal with anything but a variable. i.e., the integration time is not part of the "definition". This is part of the point I'm making. Average-reading meters display running averages with different weighting and averaging times. Consequently, standards for average-reading meters have to list things like the time constants so the meter ballistics will all be the same. Exactly. For uniformity there has to be further detail determined and settled upon and communicated. Just saying "RMS average" is not enough to convey a specific repeatable technique. It's close enough in many cases, but not in some cases where the fine details matter. RMS average is a specific and repeatable technique and it produces a single scalar value from a data stream. For what integration time? There are a lot of manufacturers who call various moving average systems "RMS." You can call your dog a cat, too. But that doesn't make him a cat. And he won't eat the cat food. I like cats. The VU meter spec is very specfic and it details precisely how the averaging is to be done. Likewise the BS.1771 spec for digital averaging meters. That's one example of a detailed spec. It is not anything close to universal. It's not universal at all. Hardly anyone uses it. This is the problem. Most DAW average meters (some of which incorrectly call themselves RMS meters) use arbitrary averaging and consequently they do not agree with one another. You cannot say they are "dB-with-respect-to-something-specific" at all. They are just useless flashing lights that provide little real information until you know precisely how they are weighted. 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. --scott I disagree. Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: In comp.dsp Dick Pierce wrote: (snip, I wrote) In EE, RMS can mean different things. Not in any "EE" I ever encountered. It means one thing: sqrt(sum(X1^2 + X2^2 ... +Xn^2) / n) It used to be, for DVMs, that was called True RMS. When they figured out how to actually do that electrically. Maybe they all do now, so it isn't a problem anymore, but it didn't used by be that way. Also, it isn't for the peak-to-peak reading VTVM, normally calibrated with an RMS (assuming sine) scale. Sorry, wrong. RMS, or "root-mean-square," is a term that predates voltmeters and DVMs and VTVMs. It is a mathemateical, yea, a statistical mathematics defintion. That is has been misused, misappropriated, improperly implemented, misunderstood or whatever does NOT change the fact that it has a precise, well understood and universally agreed-upon mathematical definition. That you can cite one or more examples of a piece of instrumentation that claims "RMS" merely points out that there are different claims, some valid, some not, of implementations. It does NOT siggest that there are different meanings to the term. He's wrong in any case, ANY meter which was average responding and calibrated in RMS, ALWAYS assumed a SINE wave input and was corrected for it. That's why True RMS meters were necessary for anything other than pure sine waves. MrT. |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... dbV is also another. However, both of these can be traced back to power with some assumptions. Not assumptions, definitions, like a fixed impedance. Also, as has been pointed out, if these types of measurements were only voltage, why was the multiplier changed from 10 to 20? Didn't you cover P=E*I and it's application to voltage given a fixed impedance in your studies? P=E^2/R and when using the log system for dB you multiply the 10*2 to get 20 (same for current since P=I^2R) Surely we must agree that the prefix "deci" means by ten! By 1/10th actually, and YES it's ALWAYS 1/10th of a BELL! You are simply allowing for the E^2 term when using 20 instead of 10 for voltage. MrT. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dynamic range, was: " dBFS"
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Yes, so I usually don't want to go for just peaks. It isn't (usually) pop, but vocal music has much less dynamic range than the symphony orchestra. Not before the recording process, but perhaps after. -- glen Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"davew" wrote in message
The VU meter is basically a bridge rectifier followed by a low pass filter. So it's mean rectified, not mean squared. So a 1dB difference for pure tone. We don't tend to use rms or mean whatever when talking about audio levels though, we just say "level" and that seems to be good enough. It's understood that when you reach 0dBFS you're in trouble shortly thereafter. http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_1/3.html " For RMS measurements, analog meter movements (D'Arsonval, Weston, iron vane, electrodynamometer) will work so long as they have been calibrated in RMS figures. Because the mechanical inertia and dampening effects of an electromechanical meter movement makes the deflection of the needle naturally proportional to the average value of the AC, not the true RMS value, analog meters must be specifically calibrated (or mis-calibrated, depending on how you look at it) to indicate voltage or current in RMS units. The accuracy of this calibration depends on an assumed waveshape, usually a sine wave. " IOW, ordinary passive meters are not True RMS meters without a lot of help. The averaging function is produced mechanically, by the mass of the moving parts of the meter If you want to make a passive analog meter that properly reads True RMS, it must use a movement that responds to the square of the applied voltage, and is nonlinearly calibrated to indicate the square root of the applied voltage. A meter that uses the applied voltage to establish both the magnetic field around its armature, and also the magnetic field produced by the armature; will respond to the square of the applied voltage. With this kind of meter, doubling both voltages (which would ordinarly be based on the same signal) will interact to produce an attraction or repulsion that quadruples. The pointer will deflect 4 times further, and the nonlinear calibration of the scale will provide the square root function. Most meters use a permanent magnet to establish the magnetic field around the armature because this makes it easier to produce a sensitive meter. They will then respond more or less linearly to the intensity of the applied voltage. Therefore a proper True RMS meter will probably not be the most sensitive meter around. Passive True RMS meters were widely used in the days before complex active electronic circuits became a practical means to accomplish the same end. I have one that was sold by RCA back in the day for measuring power line voltage, which has the expected highly nonlinear scale. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"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. |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
What units would a typical professional digital audio system use to measure RMS values of digital signals? The well known DAW software packages Cool Edit Pro and Adobe Audition both have a measurement tool that produces both peak, average, and RMS values. The measurement interval is the range of the wave that is selected and highlighted on the screen. They provide their measurements in dB FS. Signal values in DAW programs are typically dimensionless because they are dependent on the gain of the ADC that was used to digitize them, perchance they once existed as analog voltages. The gain of ADCs is not standardized and is often not even carefully specified. Pro audio ADCs often have continuously-variable analog or digital attenuators on their inputs. If you stabilize the settings of the input attenuators, then Pro Audio ADCs can be calibrated. I use an analog meter and sine waves for the purpose. The RMS and peak values of a dimensionless quantity are themselves both dimensionless. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
Scott Dorsey wrote: I don't know, because I have never seen actual instantaneous RMS values ever displayed anywhere. The term "instantaneous RMS value" is itself meaningless. Right, because RMS has to be averaged over an interval. Instantaneous peak values can be meaningful, but in the digital domain they aren't really instantaneous. They correpond to a sample interval. As a practical matter, some measuring tools allow the measurement interval can be set to be within a useful range that corresponds to something of interest to the user. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
On 11/20/2010 3:53 PM, rickman wrote: I don't recall any such restriction on N. Certainly the measurement has just as much meaning with N = 1 as any greater N. Think of it as a limit as N approaches 1 then. The point is that it is as valid a measurement for a single point as it is for many points. It represents the equivalent voltage that would produce the same power as DC of the same voltage. Consider the effective value of RMS. It's the amount of heat can be produced by the electrical energy. If you have only one sample, no matter how high it is, do you really think it will warm up your coffee? Depends on the sample rate. If the sample rate is one sample every 10 minutes... ;-) |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
some comments: 1) Any meter can be calibrated to read the RMS value of a steady sine wave. i.e. Simpson 260 reads the RMS value of a steady sine wave but is not true RMS responding. 2) True RMS meters will read the RMS value of any (within its limitation) STEADY waveform i.e. a steady square wave or steady triangle wave etc. 3) There is no standardized reading of RMS for a time varying waveform like real audio, as has been mentioned the integration time and weighting needs to be defined and I don't think there is such a standard? 4) dBFS meters on most digital equipment are not RMS or average but are more peak reading, that (try to) capture the peak value of even an individual sample. 5) Most of us given a choice I suspect would choose to a dual meter system, one that shows both the peak so that we can be assured there is no clipping combined with another display that show the LOUDNESS. LOUDNESS is not the same as RMS. There are some standards on metering of loudness of audio. Those are the two reasons we meter audio, to assure the equipment is not overloaded even on peaks and for some gauge of the loudness. Note: As has been discussed in another thread on intersampling peaks, even the definition of peak is ambiguous, the peak SAMPLE value is not always the same as the peak value of the reconstructed waveform. I don't know, but I suspect that most peak meters calibrated in dBFS are reading the peak SAMPLE value and not the true wavefomr peak therfore the true audio peak can be even higher. I don't know if this is what Randy is trying to get at or not. Mark |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/21/2010 8:54 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
That's a pretty sad state of affairs for pro audio, don't you think Scott? "Pro Audio" doesn't call the shots. It's the suppliers of program material to the consumers that do. They're the ones who can do things that earn them more money. All the engineer can do is either follow instructions of those paying him and stay in business, or follow his heart, conscience, and good taste and get a little less, or less profitable, work. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Nov 22, 1:51*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/21/2010 8:54 PM, Randy Yates wrote: That's a pretty sad state of affairs for pro audio, don't you think Scott? "Pro Audio" doesn't call the shots. It's the suppliers of program material to the consumers that do. They're the ones who can do things that earn them more money. All the engineer can do is either follow instructions of those paying him and stay in business, or follow his heart, conscience, and good taste and get a little less, or less profitable, work. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and interesting audio stuff Pro-audio is beginning to call the shot's though. Under pressure from the consumer who is fed up of turning the volume down in ad breaks. Broadcasters will soon be required to stay within certain limits of the new loudness scale. I doubt it will have much of an immediate impact on recorded music though it will still apply when broadcast so it may actually indirectly result in better quality music production in the long run (we all hope). |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/21/2010 9:02 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
The question in my mind is this: 1. How is dBFS defined? If there is no formal definition, then how is it used? You seem to think that the formal definition - that it's a SCALE and not an absolute value, is inadequate, but that's all there is. Sorry. It's like asking how Fahrenheit is defined. You can define 212 degrees F as the temperature at which water boils (under specified conditions), but you can't define what "a Fahrenheit" is. You've also been explained how dBFS is used. Once again, with feeling, any value below zero tells you how much headroom you have. That's all. It doesn't tell you how loud something sounds unless you add time and duty cycle (which will tell you how much air gets moved at the end of the chain), and you can't use it to determine how many volts will come out the analog end or how many volts coming in will get you to a specific number on the dBFS scale. Specifically, what I was wondering was this: 1. Is dBFS an instantaneous measurement or some sort of average? The only significant number is instantaneous. You could calculate an average when you know all the values within the bounds over which you're calculating it. Although some programs do that (and give you a number) because they CAN, it really isn't of general use. I think that's why everyone is dancing around an answer for you. We don't use "average dBFS" so we don't care. There are other, more useful averages. 2. If dBFS is some sort of average, what type? RMS? RMS sine? RMS square? Averaged magnitude? Any of an infinite number of ways to define it? Will you accept "no" as a temporary answer until you yourself define how you'd like it defined, and for what purpose? I admit there is some ambiguity built into the question itself since, in my understanding and teaching, a dB (of WHATEVER) can always be traced back to a ratio of two powers, and power, as I understand it, is always an average [Note 1]. Classically, dB is a ratio of measured power to a reference power. Mathematically, however, it's a ratio of anything you want. It doesn't have to be power, and it can be an instantaneous measurement. In the case where we use dBFS, the reference is 0 dBFS, and the amplitude of any single sample, as instantaneous as you can get, can be compared to the reference for a single value of dBFS. We can, in fact, even do better than that. Under certain conditions, with or without less than theoretically perfect filtering, it's possible to calculate a value greater than 0 dBFS given data from two or more adjacent samples. This is NOT an average, however. And it's real. It's a source of distortion in A/D conversion. Also, let me acknowledge that many folks have already answered my question. Can we give it a rest, then? What does Hitler have to say about dBFS? -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Mark" wrote in message
some comments: 1) Any meter can be calibrated to read the RMS value of a steady sine wave. i.e. Simpson 260 reads the RMS value of a steady sine wave but is not true RMS responding. Yes, and most of the meters in use, whether as test equipment or part of a piece of audio gear, is average-responding, calibrated as if it was RMS. IOW as we both knows, its only accurate for sine waves. 2) True RMS meters will read the RMS value of any (within its limitation) STEADY waveform i.e. a steady square wave or steady triangle wave etc. That depends on the TRMS meter. In another post I pointed out that some DAW software metering facilities respond to the portion of the wave that is selected which can range from a whole song to one or just a few samples. 3) There is no standardized reading of RMS for a time varying waveform like real audio, as has been mentioned the integration time and weighting needs to be defined and I don't think there is such a standard? I'm pretty comfortable with the metering in my DAW software because it leaves the integration time up to me and delivers both peak and average readings. 4) dBFS meters on most digital equipment are not RMS or average but are more peak reading, that (try to) capture the peak value of even an individual sample. Yes, or they respond to both peak and average values. 5) Most of us given a choice I suspect would choose to a dual meter system, one that shows both the peak so that we can be assured there is no clipping combined with another display that show the LOUDNESS. LOUDNESS is not the same as RMS. There are some standards on metering of loudness of audio. I have a lot of equipment and software that works this way. Those are the two reasons we meter audio, to assure the equipment is not overloaded even on peaks and for some gauge of the loudness. Agreed. Our ears response is closely approximated by True RMS as calculated over various periods of time. Note: As has been discussed in another thread on intersampling peaks, even the definition of peak is ambiguous, the peak SAMPLE value is not always the same as the peak value of the reconstructed waveform. I've been aware of this issue for years. I take intersample peaks to be freaks of nature that respond well to being ignored. I don't know, but I suspect that most peak meters calibrated in dBFS are reading the peak SAMPLE value and not the true wavefomr peak therfore the true audio peak can be even higher. I don't know if this is what Randy is trying to get at or not. Some software applies a Sinc function to the samples and integrates under it. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/22/2010 8:56 AM, davew wrote:
Pro-audio is beginning to call the shot's though. Under pressure from the consumer who is fed up of turning the volume down in ad breaks. Broadcasters will soon be required to stay within certain limits of the new loudness scale. How is that "Pro audio calling the shots?" It's the law, broadcasters must comply. Pro Audio is giving the tools to make the measurements (and arguing about it). There have always been mastering engineers (I'd dare say the majority) who support the concepts of dynamic range and crest factors and in general their clients concur that this sort of production sounds best. BUT when it comes to not losing sales, many opt for "make it loud." -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:58:30 -0500, Dick Pierce
wrote: Since energy is power integrated over an interval of time, we have all the information we need. The power is whatever the scaled sample value is. The interval is 1 sample period. Thus the energy is knowable. The sample period is the interval between samples, not the duration over which a sample is integrated. As far as I know, all ADCs sample an instant as the edge goes low. Energy at an instant is always zero, whereas power at an instant is whatever it is. d |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:58:45 -0500, Dick Pierce
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:58:30 -0500, Dick Pierce wrote: Since energy is power integrated over an interval of time, we have all the information we need. The power is whatever the scaled sample value is. The interval is 1 sample period. Thus the energy is knowable. The sample period is the interval between samples, not the duration over which a sample is integrated. As far as I know, all ADCs sample an instant as the edge goes low. No, for simple implementation reasons, the aperture, while small, is not zero. It is much smaller than the sample interval, but the fact that is is non-zero leads to a seldom-quoted A/D spec called "aperture error". But, as I mention elswhere, sampling theorom suggests that the difference between an aperture of 0 and an aperture approaching a sample width is irrelevant to the resulting data. This is all true, I accept that you have trumped my nit-pick with an even smaller nit-pick (and so ad infinitum) Energy at an instant is always zero, Mr. Einstein muight disagree, given that mass can exist during that same instant. Things approaching zero gave Mr Einstein considerable trouble. He wasn't at all happy about quantum mechanics. whereas power at an instant is whatever it is. But, as you will probably agree, there are no "instants" in any practical system we can build. No, no instants - but we do go an awful lot smaller than the sampling interval. d |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In article , Randy Yates wrote:
(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 really, since people very seldom really need to know average levels these days. What is important in the digital world are peak levels and perceived loudness... and dBFS takes care of the first one nicely. If you really need to know average levels for some reason, you can buy calibrated meters from Dorrough or RTW which follow the ITU standard. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:33:53 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote: Hi, Some had responded here to my recent inquiry on levels that dBFS is a peak measurement. If an RMS measurement needs to be made for a digital signal (i.e., on a digital mixing console or a ProTools plugin), what units are utilized? I thought they were dBFS, i.e., that dBFS was an RMS measurement. Apparently I am incorrect. Somebody please set me straight. What an interesting thread. It's funny the things that get argued again and again ... good to see that Usenet is still alive! My answer is that dBFS is a peak measurement (and most likely of samples, not of a reconstructed waveform, which could be higher) as displayed by the bargraph "meters" in most recording software, unless it says it's something else. The something else is usually RMS. There's been debate in this thread about bits vs. voltages (or power, which is the "root" (sorry) of the RMS voltage measurement). I really see no conflict here. The dB levels calculated with bits (more specifically, linear PCM representations of discrete sampled voltages) are the same as when the samples are put out through DAC's and the relative voltages measured and the dB values calculated from those. The numeric values are just binary representations of voltages, and the values are calculated the same way. The dB value is the ratio of two values of power, or two values of RMS voltage into a fixed resistor, or between two sets of samples whose RMS values are calculated. This reminds me of a thread I read here (rec.audio.pro) long ago on dBFS RMS measurement, and how one recording program did it. First is a setup thread, "The Crest of the Wave (reference stuff!):" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...213daf805e93c9 Next, the thread I remember: "RMS in CEP, just in from Syntrillium" (that's Cool Edit Pro, presumably used the same RMS code as Cool Edit 96, both by Syntrillium before Adobe bought it all and renamed it Audition): http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...cacf7552df88d7 I hope that sheds more light than heat. It's also notable that there are several participants in those 11-year-old threads that are also posting in this one. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Scott Dorsey wrote:
For example, the average meters on Pro Tools don't seem to match anything else or meet any known standard. The ballistics are faster than VU. This answers something I've long wondered about - what do the meters on the Pro Tools mix window measure when recording or playing back? It's like the markings on the side of the waveform in the edit window - are they meant to mean anything in dB? I've never foud anything in the Pro Tools manuals to say what they're meant to mean. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/23/2010 4:13 PM, Michael Dines wrote:
This answers something I've long wondered about - what do the meters on the Pro Tools mix window measure when recording or playing back? That there's audio there. They also give you an idea of how close you're getting to clipping. It's like the markings on the side of the waveform in the edit window - are they meant to mean anything in dB? I've never foud anything in the Pro Tools manuals to say what they're meant to mean. I don't know about Pro Tools, but it's typical for waveform graphics in a DAW to be scaled in dB, with the top and bottom of the graph area representing full scale positive and negative. This is the reason why everybody thinks his mixes aren't "hot enough." With waveform peaks reaching a fairly respectable -6 dBFS, the waveform fills only half the area and looks pretty wimpy. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/21/2010 8:54 PM, Randy Yates wrote: That's a pretty sad state of affairs for pro audio, don't you think Scott? "Pro Audio" doesn't call the shots. It's the suppliers of program material to the consumers that do. They're the ones who can do things that earn them more money. All the engineer can do is either follow instructions of those paying him and stay in business, or follow his heart, conscience, and good taste and get a little less, or less profitable, work. Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business..... |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Mike Rivers wrote: "Pro Audio" doesn't call the shots. It's the suppliers of program material to the consumers that do. They're the ones who can do things that earn them more money. All the engineer can do is either follow instructions of those paying him and stay in business, or follow his heart, conscience, and good taste and get a little less, or less profitable, work. Yep, if you want a good example of how sad it has become, grab the new Katy Perry song "California Gurls" and open it into your wave editor of choice, and have a look at just how badly compressed, clipped and grossly distorted the waveforms are for a million selling record these days. It's nothing new of course, the same was being done with Madonna, Brittany Spears etc. However I didn't think it could get worse, and yet it has. As the performance level of all the studio equipment used has increased, the quality of the finished recordings has markedly decreased. :-( It's not all due to incompetence of course, but unfortunately a lot of it is if they can't get a similar result without so much distortion. I know many recording/mastering engineers who can! MrT. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
manipulate 24 bit audio to increment amplitude by 1 dBFS | Tech | |||
Line Input Level for 0 dBFS? | Pro Audio | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
Classical program ff = ?dbFS | Pro Audio |