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. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev