Average RMS analyser tool for Ardour

I am looking for a RMS analyser to use with Ardour and Jamin
for 
approximating loudness in mastering.  All the other aspects
of mastering 
you can get right if you have the golden (or goldish) ears,
but loudness 
is a very subjective thing to measure by ear...

The Ideal would be an offline analysis built into ardour, in
which you 
can select a track and say "Analyse" - with some
statistics following.  
Perhaps it could have the same interface as export, so that
you could 
send your chosen export channels as a selection to be
analysed.

That's it for the feature request.  In the mean time I am
still stranded.

Which tools are you using, and where did you get it.  The
only tool I 
could find that looks promising so far is PostQC, but it is
still very 
far from a viable release at the moment.

I use Steve's meterbridge for all the rest, but the RMS (or
perceived 
loudness) is a bit evasive.

Any tips appreciated

Quentin
_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

Quentin Harley wrote:
> I am looking for a RMS analyser to use with Ardour and
Jamin for 
> approximating loudness in mastering.
>
> Any tips appreciated
>   

I assume the silence means that everybody is just winging
it, as I have 
so far.

Ok then...


_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 05:15:59PM +0200, Quentin Harley
wrote:

> Quentin Harley wrote:
> > I am looking for a RMS analyser to use with Ardour
and Jamin for 
> > approximating loudness in mastering.
> >
> > Any tips appreciated
> >   
> 
> I assume the silence means that everybody is just
winging it, as I have 
> so far.

You could be a bit clearer as to what exactly you want.

RMS level is not the same as loudness.

Subjective loudness, and how it varies in function of RMS,
depends on:

- absolute listening level,
- the spectrum of your signal, and its recent history,
- the FR of you playback system,
- if you like the sound/music or not,
- etc. etc.

There are standardised methods to measure loudness in some
contexts, but they must be applied to a physical sound
signal,
not some recorded data.

-- 
FA

Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia

Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.

_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> RMS level is not the same as loudness.
>   

Thanks, I am aware of this

> Subjective loudness, and how it varies in function of
RMS,
> depends on:
>
> - absolute listening level,
> - the spectrum of your signal, and its recent history,
> - the FR of you playback system,
> - if you like the sound/music or not,
> - etc. etc.
>
>   
That is why I am going to trust my ears to to the real
adjustment.  All 
I need is to get the material in some target region, and
then do the 
adjustments for each track by ear around that point.  I also
do quite a 
bit of classical and choral recordings, and I find my end
result 
sometimes too soft for radio.  Again, I just need some
reference until I 
can get the base level right.

Thanks for your input.  It confirms what I believed was true
regarding 
automated "mastering".

That is why I like the ardour-jamin combination so much. 
You have full 
control, and in the end what sounds best wins

Daniel at 64studio gave me a link to a command-line tool I
could use.

Cheers,
Quentin

_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

I've found meterbridge's VU meter to be much closer to what
I'm
hearing than any RMS meter. RMS just shows the general
energy level
behind the signal, which may or may not correlate directly
to the
volume level you are perceiving.

-Reuben

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Quentin Harley
<qharleywbs.co.za> wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>  > RMS level is not the same as loudness.
>  >
>
>  Thanks, I am aware of this
>
>
>  > Subjective loudness, and how it varies in
function of RMS,
>  > depends on:
>  >
>  > - absolute listening level,
>  > - the spectrum of your signal, and its recent
history,
>  > - the FR of you playback system,
>  > - if you like the sound/music or not,
>  > - etc. etc.
>  >
>  >
>  That is why I am going to trust my ears to to the real
adjustment.  All
>  I need is to get the material in some target region,
and then do the
>  adjustments for each track by ear around that point. 
I also do quite a
>  bit of classical and choral recordings, and I find my
end result
>  sometimes too soft for radio.  Again, I just need some
reference until I
>  can get the base level right.
>
>  Thanks for your input.  It confirms what I believed
was true regarding
>  automated "mastering".
>
>  That is why I like the ardour-jamin combination so
much.  You have full
>  control, and in the end what sounds best wins
>
>  Daniel at 64studio gave me a link to a command-line
tool I could use.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Quentin
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  ardour-dev mailing list
>  ardour-devlists.ardour.org
>  http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org
>
_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

Quentin Harley wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> RMS level is not the same as loudness.
>>   
> 
> Thanks, I am aware of this
> 
>> Subjective loudness, and how it varies in function
of RMS,
>> depends on:
>>
>> - absolute listening level,
>> - the spectrum of your signal, and its recent
history,
>> - the FR of you playback system,
>> - if you like the sound/music or not,
>> - etc. etc.
>>

That is definitely true. But except for musical taste there
are quite
reliable loudness models, mainly used in phsyco-acoustics,
which take
spectral and temporal structure of sounds into account, and
can also
model hearing loss, masking noise (like in cars; this is why
you
definitely need different dynamics in cars than in your
studio) and so on.

There are attempts to generate an automated master mix,
based on
loudness models, musical style etc.. Personally, I do not
beleive in
that, but the group working on it claims that it works
pretty well to
create initial master mix settings. Unfortunately, the link
I found is
only in german, but you might contact the leader of the
group, Jörg
Bitzer:
http://www.hoertechnik-audiologie.de/web/fil
e/Forschung/Projekte.php,
project "Virtual Sound Engineer".

- Giso

>>   
> That is why I am going to trust my ears to to the real
adjustment.  All 
> I need is to get the material in some target region,
and then do the 
> adjustments for each track by ear around that point.  I
also do quite a 
> bit of classical and choral recordings, and I find my
end result 
> sometimes too soft for radio.  Again, I just need some
reference until I 
> can get the base level right.
> 
> Thanks for your input.  It confirms what I believed was
true regarding 
> automated "mastering".
> 
> That is why I like the ardour-jamin combination so
much.  You have full 
> control, and in the end what sounds best wins
> 
> Daniel at 64studio gave me a link to a command-line
tool I could use.
> 
> Cheers,
> Quentin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ardour-dev mailing list
> ardour-devlists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org
_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

Whenever I compile Ardour, a file gets generated (called
PACKAGER_README)
which states that developers must not distribute Ardour in
binary form with
VST support enabled.  Although this isn't something I've
ever needed to do,
yesterday (for reasons unconnected with Ardour) I needed to
read the VST
developer's license agreement here:-

http://
www.steinberg.de/532+M52087573ab0.html

I can't see anywhere where it seeks to limit the developer's
right to
distribute binaries.  In fact the whole purpose of the
agreement is to grant
rights to a developer (and I quote) " for the
development of VST PlugIns
and/or for the development of an application that can host
VST PlugIns."
The only proviso is that you don't distribute the "VST
Plugin Interface
Technology".  Sadly, the "VST Plugin Interface
Technology" isn't actually
defined anywhere - but further down the agreement it states
that "Steinberg
licences the VST PlugIn Interface Technology on an 'AS IS'
basis."  This
suggests that the VST PlugIn Interface Technology is,
effectively, the
developer's SDK.  In other words, you may distribute plugins
and host
programs that use the SDK but not the SDK itself.  This is
in line with
other similar licensing arrangements.

Have I mis-read the agreement or is there some other
agreement covering
Ardour?

John

_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb John Emmas:
> Whenever I compile Ardour, a file gets generated
(called PACKAGER_README)
> which states that developers must not distribute Ardour
in binary form with
> VST support enabled.  Although this isn't something
I've ever needed to do,
> yesterday (for reasons unconnected with Ardour) I
needed to read the VST
> developer's license agreement here:-
> 
> http://
www.steinberg.de/532+M52087573ab0.html
> 
> I can't see anywhere where it seeks to limit the
developer's right to
> distribute binaries.  In fact the whole purpose of the
agreement is to grant
> rights to a developer (and I quote) " for the
development of VST PlugIns
> and/or for the development of an application that can
host VST PlugIns."
> The only proviso is that you don't distribute the
"VST Plugin Interface
> Technology".  Sadly, the "VST Plugin
Interface Technology" isn't actually
> defined anywhere - but further down the agreement it
states that "Steinberg
> licences the VST PlugIn Interface Technology on an 'AS
IS' basis."  This
> suggests that the VST PlugIn Interface Technology is,
effectively, the
> developer's SDK.  In other words, you may distribute
plugins and host
> programs that use the SDK but not the SDK itself.  This
is in line with
> other similar licensing arrangements.
> 
> Have I mis-read the agreement or is there some other
agreement covering
> Ardour?

The GPL. As far as I understood it, the GPL urges you to
deliver all 
used source files on request, which conflicts with the
"you must not 
spread the SDK sources" part of the SDK license.

Maybe someone else can explain better...

Edgar 
 
>
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ardour-dev mailing list
> ardour-devlists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org
> 
>
_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edgar Aichinger" <edogawaaon.at>
Subject: Re: [Ardour-Dev] VST and binaries
>
> As far as I understood it, the GPL urges you to deliver
all used
> source files on request, which conflicts with the
"you must not
> spread the SDK sources" part of the SDK license.
>
> Maybe someone else can explain better...
>
That's exactly where I'm confused too.  The VST agreement
appears to
restrict distribution of the sources, rather than the
resultant binaries.

John



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edgar Aichinger" <edogawaaon.at>
To: <ardour-devlists.ardour.org>
Sent: 08 March 2008 14:21
Subject: Re: [Ardour-Dev] VST and binaries


Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb John Emmas:
> Whenever I compile Ardour, a file gets generated
(called PACKAGER_README)
> which states that developers must not distribute Ardour
in binary form
> with
> VST support enabled.  Although this isn't something
I've ever needed to
> do,
> yesterday (for reasons unconnected with Ardour) I
needed to read the VST
> developer's license agreement here:-
>
> http://
www.steinberg.de/532+M52087573ab0.html
>
> I can't see anywhere where it seeks to limit the
developer's right to
> distribute binaries.  In fact the whole purpose of the
agreement is to
> grant
> rights to a developer (and I quote) " for the
development of VST PlugIns
> and/or for the development of an application that can
host VST PlugIns."
> The only proviso is that you don't distribute the
"VST Plugin Interface
> Technology".  Sadly, the "VST Plugin
Interface Technology" isn't actually
> defined anywhere - but further down the agreement it
states that
> "Steinberg
> licences the VST PlugIn Interface Technology on an 'AS
IS' basis."  This
> suggests that the VST PlugIn Interface Technology is,
effectively, the
> developer's SDK.  In other words, you may distribute
plugins and host
> programs that use the SDK but not the SDK itself.  This
is in line with
> other similar licensing arrangements.
>
> Have I mis-read the agreement or is there some other
agreement covering
> Ardour?

The GPL. As far as I understood it, the GPL urges you to
deliver all
used source files on request, which conflicts with the
"you must not
spread the SDK sources" part of the SDK license.

Maybe someone else can explain better...

Edgar

>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> ardour-dev mailing list
> ardour-devlists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org

On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 15:09 +0000, John Emmas wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Edgar Aichinger" <edogawaaon.at>
> Subject: Re: [Ardour-Dev] VST and binaries
> >
> > As far as I understood it, the GPL urges you to
deliver all used
> > source files on request, which conflicts with the
"you must not
> > spread the SDK sources" part of the SDK
license.
> >
> > Maybe someone else can explain better...
> >
> That's exactly where I'm confused too.  The VST
agreement appears to
> restrict distribution of the sources, rather than the
resultant binaries.

you are violating Ardour's license, not the VST license.
Ardour's
license says that you must be able to supply all the source
used to any
recipient of the binary; the VST license says that you
cannot provide
the VST source code to that person. Ergo, you are violating
Ardour's
license.




_______________________________________________
ardour-dev mailing list
ardour-devlists.ardour.org
http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour
.org