finally a couple of comments that sound familiar in this thread eheheh

just for info

I use to monitor the INPUT of my stereo buss chain this (calibrated to my needs the photo is random)


and I use this one to monitor the OUTPUT of my stereo buss (so the actual "export" result)



and I use the VU meters for calibrating analog emulation plugins, I know it sounds weird, but it helps me

1 comparing different plugin developers emulating the same machine, because before testing I calibrate the new plugin the same way I have on the ones I already know since ages

2 treating the plugin like "true hardware", because in the real world you rarely touch the machines, if you need another setting you buy another one lol so I have more or less 3 presets ready to go for every analog compressor I use, I have just to gainstage the input (with a simple trim)

so...:

 

It doesn't sound weird, so I have a guess. It sounds like you are into the Brauerize approach already, or should watch the video about it if you haven't. It sounds like you know, or figure out; the sweet spot of each plugin's settings, have an instance of it ready to go in your template, and just push the amount of information upward at whatever processor. That works because you already know what what the processor is going to react like, and that's why it is in your template to begin with. It's a virtual replacement for it's hardware equivalent. You probably have gain matched your send options so you can compare different plugins changes in sound, not loudness.

 

VU meters are usually set to reference 0db non-didgital as a default. DAW meters have a default hard-limit of Odbfs.

Each DAW has differences in default Pan-Law & dbfs meter settings. Pan-Law determines how level attenuation occurs when a signal is panned.
dbfs at -18 is understood to represent 0db on an analog VU meter. Good range for driving into each analog emulation is -18dbfs to -14dbfs dependent on the source audio going into each plug-in. This is where VU meters are the most useful ensuring you have enough or, not to much signal driving any plug-in that emulates analog input/output.

Michael Brauer uses -17dbfs as a sweet spot if I remember correctly.

 

They are for V(olume) U(nits)
when you needs to know yer Volume Units you use the VU meter. its goes back to analog recording it was the only metering that they had a long time ago, like on an analog tape machine.

plus they do look good and make your mix sound better than an BBPro Audiomaximizer plugin.

dont get it mixed up with the UV meter, or you could get a nasty sunburn....

 

Only slightly on topic, while downloading updates, I threw "Old VU Meter Useless" into three different text-to-image generators.
(It's interesting to see the way different algorithms process things in the same fashion, if you swap out synonymous adjectives.)

 

My mixes sound more analogue when I use VU meters

 

Oh yeah, you definitely don't want them to sound "digital."
(IYKYK )

 

well yeah, since ears are analog and so is the human brain, so ya gotta do a Digital to analog conversion before it hits your target demographic, or a facsimile thereof...

 

Yes, exactly. My understanding of their use of third-party VU meter for calibration of all the plugins though; was because they were measuring them in a second room in comparison with the actual hardware units in room #1, they were attempting to replicate within the new template. Comparison with other DAW software wouldn't be the larger concern since both computers were running the same versions of Protools. I think you answered it either way, but my question was more about why calibrate 1 plugin to initially test; if you are not dropping it into a template like this, as part of your testing? It's to in/out match what you are replacing in that slot. I'd never seen anyone try to recreate their own physical studio virtually like that, all at once. Usually people are comparing with what they are replacing, one processor at a time as they buy and sell everything.

 

exactely all 100% correct

I have all my chains saved and ready to go for different sounds/situations on single tracks and on busses, with the brauerize calibration but also with different calibration that I created for my workflow. My concept is to emulate a true hardware studio. And everything is already gain staged, I just have to make slight tweaks sometimes, but I can compare plugins quickly.

 

From top to bottom:

1. VU (300ms)
2. RMS (300ms)
3. LUFS-M (400ms)

Reference level and meter scaling of RMS and LUFS matched to VU so that it is comparable.




When I listen to this piece of audio (in this case vocals, but the type of instrument makes no difference as long as it's a single instrument and not a mix) what I hear in level variance correlates most with VU.
If it's an instrument with a high proportion of low frequencies with a complex harmonic structure, pre K-weighted filtering helps.
If, on the other hand, the measured signal is a mix of different instruments, LUFS best describes the perceived loudness.

When people call VU meters "virtually useless" or claim that VU is the same as RMS but in a different display style, it always makes me smile. It shows that these people have little to no experience in using VU meters and have no idea what they are actually talking about.

Okay, so RMS (digital) and VU (digital) is not the same only because the integration time is interpreted different, right?
Well, we'll see. Let's make it even more comparable:

1. VU (300ms)
2. RMS (150ms)

Similar, but still not the same. What is the difference? First and foremost, it's the inertia. Although this inertia makes the measurement less precise from a technical point of view, it corresponds better with the human auditory perception of levels. Not with regard to the frequency response (here LUFS has the edge due to K-weighted filtering), but due to the dynamic behaviour shown. Got it?

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2024

I don't know how accurate the ballistics in for instance Pulsar 1178 (a compressor I use a lot) are, but it's got "VU" (or thereabouts) meters for gain reduction.

But... I find that sort of visual feedback handier than a fast peak style meter quicker to figure out as it seems to somehow visualise the attack/release of the comp somehow more "naturally".

Yeah, I know, a lot of handwaving, but for stuff where I don't care about exact figures, like buss compression, this works for me.

For actual measuring, yeah, just use more accurate metering I say.

 

Mate, do you have any work available to listen?