Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
dBFS | Pro Audio | |||
dBFS | Tech | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
Classical program ff = ?dbFS | Pro Audio |