Okay, I guess I'll answer the questions myself, and I won't be putting on any satin gloves...
Those that know me, know that I pay attention to detail if it comes to metering tools - and that I don't mince matters. For a blatant ripoff of Klanghelm's VUMTv2 (Deluxe, skins: white = Creme but with black border/Classic = Brown but with Flipped contrast, even the "needle design" is the same/black = Creme with flipped contrast // down to the orange info boxes in the manual that Klanghelm also used!), this is some banged up job, and not even accurate (see my old criticism on dpMeter v1 and the "AES-17 offset" dilemma). Not to mention bug ridden (then again, Wavelab 9 wasn't listed as "tested", but if you hang out that far of the window... just saying).
The main bug(s)
Resizing in Wavelab works, but once you "move" the UI to another place, the window shrinks to the "default size". This can be fixed if you hit the "make small" or "close UI" button in WL, but this shouldn't happen. I could even manage to "crash" the current loaded instance by switching to yet another screen size. For example: first I switched to 400%, then tried to drag the UI - container window went "okay, I use the default size". "Good", I though, "let's try switching to 150% then" ... poof goes the UI.
Can't confirm the high CPU load, though I can confirm slight glitches while UI resizes (no CPU spikes though)
Like my criticism with ALL TB Pro Audio Releases so far, it's absolutely sub-par. There is no mention of in-depth specs, the description of the features are vague.
Only one mode is selectable, and it's a "combo meter". It's actually the BBC scale on the top part, and the EBU scale on the bottom part. But the calibration is absolutely f*cked up.
First and foremost, it's "wrong calibrated". You DO NOT calibrate to 0dBFS (which does result in 8.5PPM in your meter btw), ever... in the (Analog) "voltage realm", that would be way beyond 1,228V. In the digital realm, you use -18dBFS (most common, EBU convention R68) or -20dBFS (STMPE recommendation) - period. And these are the values it should jump to with -18dbFS:
PPM/BBC = 4
PPM/EBU = Test
The values do however jump to:
PPM/BBC = 2,5
PPM/EBU = -6
Don't believe me?
On further testing, rise/fall seemed strange as well. And in cross check with various VU's on my HDD, the meter responded slightly delayed as well.
But it doesn't end there...
Okay so according to the manual, it's supposed to be calibrated to -18dBFS. Now is that right?
Yes, with a static signal. Definite no with 300ms noise burst followed by 300ms silence test. This results in a jump between -20VU and -1VU, which gives me the impression "the ballistics are NOT 300ms, the meter must run slower".
Quick check: it's actually about 400-450ms (cross checked with VUMT2 Deluxe, VU-mode: Ideal)
So that is off as well...
The RMS meter is NOT a RMS meter
It uses a weighting filter (k-weighting), so it's an "ITU-R BS.1770-x type RMS realtime meter", not a "flat frequency response (aka Z-weight) RMS realtime meter". The "time frame" (ballistic) is about 350ms. The "refence" is the given -20/-14/-12. I assume this is the concept of Bob Katz using the ITU-R MLk specs with his "K-System v1 rules" (see Martin Zuther's K-Meter among others)...
But other than that, not a z-weighted (flat) RMS realtime meter (Dorrough specs, 600ms "window")
And finally, let's run the official EBU R-128 test sequence
While I do know for a fact that VUMT2 Deluxe can show 1:1 values (albeit only in L/R mode) to ToneBoosters EBU Loudness/Compact (both numeric and "needle"), mvMeter doesn't exceed +3 on the scale, but +8.2 on the numeric readout. Let's do a quick math shall we? -23 +8,2 = -14,8LUFS. The test file does indeed jump up to -14.8LUFS MLk max... but the TB ProAudio meter isn't even SUITABLE to show the +9dB headroom for "noise bursts" as written in the EBU R-128 and ITU-R BS.1770-x white papers.
So MLk, while being somewhat accurate, is completely unusable.
Let's check the same file with SLk
Okay... in "stereo mode" (which is still only one global needle) it does give me a readout of +5 (again, not on the scale anymore), which in turn results in: -23LUFS +5LUFS = -18LUFS SLk. What do other meters show? -18LUFS SLk. Tolerance allowed for EBU R-128: +-0,1LU
So that is also somewhat accurate
At this stage I CAN NOT recommend this meter.
Do yourself a favor and DO NOT DOWNLOAD
It's a nice try to surf on the success of the recently released VUMT2 / VUMT(2) Deluxe, but to me it's nothing more than an inaccurate, undocumented rip off. You're better off with the still freely available, though now discontinued SleepyTimeDSP "Stereo Meter" (backups can be found on Bedroom Producers Blog) if you're in need of a free x64 VU meter.
Honest question to the developer
Do you even know(!) what xyz metering tool does, what it was made for, where it's boundaries lie and how it's being setup (heck, Wikipedia's article on the Peak Programme Meter gives you the exact values!)? I slowly get the impression that you don't
. A lot of your tools are aimed at "accurate metering". But that's like the third time for me that I'm talking about your offset meters, and point out it's flaws, it's wrong advertisement and what have you. The AES-17 offset discussion alone resulted in pages of "I don't know what you're talking about".
This shows me all the wrong flags in one spot. And I do not only say this as somebody that has Metering Tools as a pet peeve, I say this as an audio engineer who thinks that proper working analysis tools are important.
So much potential, just thrown out of the window.
And you know what really annoys me with this? Or rather, downright pisses me of?!
People see only the following things
1) it looks cool
2) it's free
3) the dev has a certain amount of plugins already, the feedback is general positive, so it must be good
Yet it's not even working accurately
. Are you aware as to what this means?! You've giving out a tool, for free, for people to mass share who then insist "this is the best stuff that is available on this planet" (because: looks good, is freeware, not "pesky mere 22EUR via the competition"
But they're not using it right! Why?! Because "who" really knows these days how to properly check/setup a meter?! What the correct specs are, what it's supposed to show on the scale?!
This started the Loudness War in the first place, this results in still made up nonsense "metering standards", or the notion that "EBU R-128 type MLk meters are good for setting up individual channels of a project" (looking at the Reaper forum, or at Klangfreund's LUFS Meter "landing page"). Joe Normalguy can not(!) differentiate, and he won't dig any further into this either.
Do you have any idea how many PM's I get via KVR alone with the same questions about metering over and over and over again?! It's because of releases like this!
This is far from being poster-child material for you.
[Fußnote: Ich kann das auch gerne noch mal in Deutsch verfassen, falls irgendwo eine Sprachbarierre existiert - aber ich denke ich habe meinen Punkt klar gemacht. Fakt ist, der Meter is "Off"/gibt falsche Werte aus, ist (erneut) nicht korrekt kalibriert. Ich würde das Release sofort zurück ziehen und das Konzept wenigstens nicht offensichtlich 1:1 "abkupfern"]
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.