Dan Mills wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 18:26 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
>
>> - Bad! Having a VU meter that can be adjusted to allegedly be in sync
>> with some analogue VU meter never ever will be fine. Compare margin for
>> your digital meters and the meters on your mixing console by playing the
>> same song several times, they always will differ a little bit different,
>> each time you play the song.
>>
>
> Of course they read different things! They are measuring different
> things!
>
> The VU is a slow response meter (300ms integration time IIRC)intended to
> (badly) track perceived volume, the meters on (most) DAWs are closer to
> digital peak meters intended to monitor absolute peak levels. Both are
> useful and both have a place.
>
> The differences each time you play are why we leave the thick end of
> 20db of headroom between 0 VU and 0dbFS, you should (in a production
> environment) never be going anywhere near 0dbFS (there is no need for it
> in the age of 20+ bit ADC noise floors).
>
>
>> It seems to be dangerous to have such a VU meter.
>>
>
> Why is it dangerous? it tells you something about RMS levels which you
> would not otherwise know (peak reading meters provide little guidance as
> to perceived volume).
>
> Now, I don't know about this particular implementation (I don't have an
> LV2 host to hand), but a good implementation of a VU would not be an
> inherently bad thing to have available.
>
> Regards, Dan.
>
If I understand correctly this VU meter can be adjusted. Someone might
adjust it and than (s)he thinks it gives information about peak on his
analogue mastering tape recorder, but it won't do this.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Aug 23 20:15:03 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 23 2009 - 20:15:03 EEST