yeah, but he is right, most analog VU meters already have a DC filter since it is more useful for the eyes.

and in digital displays you could even do fletcher munson correction.

 

funfact:

an analog VU meter in traditional style has a higher resolution, but a very slow attack time because of its mechanical pointer.

analog LED meters on the other hand often only do offer less than 12 levels, but can have up to 400Hz.

 

But 400Hz isn't really that much.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "loudness" plugin just like in hi-fi amps.

And I'm not arguing here which is better, but I do like VUs in some dynamics processors though on the whole I rely on peak meters to see what is fucking up my mix.

 

Well... strictly speaking, the reading of an analog VU meter is the rectified value of voltage (U) and not an indication of the power (RMS) of the signal. With digital VU meters, of course, it's a different story, since there's no voltage in the DAW.

 

16-25Hz would be enough of course.

and of course i supressed the fact that leds also have in andout times or that the brightness can be used to diplay values in between.

i personally dislike real VU meters a lot, the slow cooldown time seems wrong to my eyes ears.

peak is the current voltage and the power is the average voltage over a defined period. usually squared. so the difference between digital and analog is almost meaningless.

but if you ask me how VU meters actually work, i dont know. probably there are very different methods to do the same.

electricians think more in mathematical terms while soldering than you might think - but when i look at circuits boards, to me they are just a bunch of funny little things.

 

Yes, I know that much

Mathematically, yes. Physically... no.

VU is defined very precisely in the technical literature: As a measuring instrument for determining ARV.
The RMS value is the square root of the mean value of the square of the voltage.
The rectified value is the average of the magnitude of the voltage.

Or to make the difference more descriptive:
There is a big difference if I drink 1L water a day for 5 days or 5L in 1 hour.
The quantity is identical, but the intensity per time is not!

But overall, of course, you're absolutely right. I'm really just nitpicking here

Edit: And to be quite honest, each VU meter shows something different anyway. One is more RMS oriented, the other more ARV oriented. Some are something in between, and some are completely off and therefore useless for anything. But by definition they are rectified meters.

 

Last edited: Sep 19, 2021

I was joking and referring to the sound frequency.

 

for the average user, the main difference makes whether amplitude or power is shown vertical or horizontal.

i cant stand classic VU meters and have almost no use for them, simply because i am not used to them. for me, amplitude or power must be shown vertical.

well there are standards describing exactly what is shown. i believe more than 10 or so. but i really dont require these industry standards, i always prefer to be able to use custom settings.

 

I'll go even a step further, because when it comes to VU meter plugins, I've never used one (except for testing purposes), it just wasn't necessary.

 

That's understandable, of course.

Hmm... multiple standards for VU?... i mean, then the whole or at least a part of the circuit would have to be different. This is new to me... but interesting. I think I'll have to do some research here.

 

maybe it is not correc to still call it a "VU meter" if you f.e. change the slide in slide out times.

but there are otoh at least 2 different versions of how pointers show numbers, one with a resistor in addition, which makes sure that a real power of 0 will never go above 0. i am not sure if that is the same thing than "showing dbU as if it would be dbA", which i also remember vaguely.

 

plus, in both analog mixers and DAWs tehre is that problem, that the GUI simply doenst fit into a channel strip.

i mean there is really everything about it "wrong". :D

but i started with mixing desks in 1988 at the age of 16, and i know that people who are ten years older love to use VU meters for a good reason.

 

I use VU Meter to pretend I know what I'm doing

 

this one should have them both, that is where one should start when implementing something like that.

as it seems it is not only 300 ms slide down, but also up. i did not know that, i would have thought up is faster than down.

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3341.pdf

 

eventually the explanation for "different standards" is a bit different from what i thought.

"Note, however, that many products bearing "VU" or "VU Meter" do not conform to these standards." (globalspec.com)

that is the explanation for many discussions about what is right and wrong i guess - the manufacturers startet that already.

 

With the VU, the settling time is per definition equal to the return time. However, some manufacturers do not care... I have also seen VU meters with 1.5 seconds return time.

 

Translation from the German Wikipedia:

 

I use VU Meters because I'm intimately use to them having worked on analog consoles most of my career. Even in DAW I prefer VU to LUFS simply because I know what I'm looking for. Since I do a lot of gain staging for any project I work on, VU is just something that I'm comfortable with and prefer.

 

Don't know about others , but this just a meter at the end of the day. This is just a simple reassurance for me.
Whenever i feel that the kick and 808 together is not hitting as hard as far as my taste goes , i take a look at the VU meter to see if the needles are hitting the red the way I know it will hit if the Low frequency part of the record is knocking perfectly