MAAT DR Meter - copy protection is terrible

[bobhva]

Last night I saw that MAAT was having a sale on their plugins so I went ahead and bought the DR Meter even though I really didn't need another metering plugin. When I installed it everything went smooth... until I loaded the plugin and tried to register it. For all of you out there who hate I-lok I have news for you, there IS something worse and it is called Codemeter software. This is an absolutely ridiculous copy protection system! I spent an hour trying to get it to authorize and was never successful. Download the program, generate this file to upload, verify another file, blah blah blah and it never worked. I wish I would have known about their use of this copy protection software before I purchased this plugin. I sent a message to customer service but have not heard back from them. I just want to make people aware, if you see something the uses Codemeter software to authorize - skip it!

[Kr3eM]

Thank you for the warning. I really appreciate it.

It's frustrating how hard it is to get proper information about dependencies a authorization system have.

As an example, I have no internet access for my DAW and sometimes spend hours just trying to find clear information if the requirement "Internet Connection" means a connection in general or if my DAW actually need to be connected to activate.

[original flipper]

Hi

Thanks for the info.

The first thing I inquire about prior to making any purchase is what the copy protection is.

I recently saw a great deal going for a VSTI for $1!!!

Guess what - the software required either Ilok or the software variation!

Sure these companies have valid reasons for protecting their software but in many cases they really seem to have lost the plot (as to the choice of c/p used).

People want software that is hassle free - it's bad enough having to deal with the inevitable bugs in software, let alone dealing with problematic or draconian software protection.

[mutantdog]

There's a free version of the DR meter available as a Foobar2000 addon

http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/de/free-downloads
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,114734.0.html

[bobhva]

I have had no problems at all with I-lok but this codemeter thing was just horrible. I just wanted to give people a heads up that it might be a problem, especially for people who don't like I-lok and other similar protection schemes. I will say that MAAT Digital did respond to me and promptly offered me a refund or to help with the problem. They were very nice about it but I took the refund as I don't want to deal with another licensing tool, especially a difficult one like this Codemeter.

[jbarish]

MAAT also has a free 2 bus plugin that I won't go near because of Codemeter. Codemeter is so old and antiquated, they really need to find a better way. I don't know of another current software that still uses it. If you got a refund, consider yourself lucky.

[Omkar]

Thanks for sharing the issue,
Magix dropped Codemeter many moons ago because of endless problems.

Because of the fact Friedemann Tischmeyer (I trust blindly due to anything musicproduction related) is the founder
and the mail announcement MAAT owns the code of famous Eqs Algorithmix once released (orange, blue, red)
I decided to link the thread to them as it would be a pitty a young company fails because of the wrong protection choice.
(Reminds me of the Black Rooster case and how happy everybody is now at both ends).

If MAAT hops in I hope critics remain constructive to reiterate the positive result like it was/is with Black Rooster.

[budweiser]

I believe codemeter is used by propellerhead without problems...

[mutantdog]

If MAAT hops in I hope critics remain constructive to reiterate the positive result like it was/is with Black Rooster.

Well in that case I'll come out and say it.

If fighting the loudness war is a cause the creators believe in so passionately, then surely it is for the greater good that the DR meter be made freely available thus gaining the most widespread use. There's no reason why a more feature-rich premium version couldn't be added for professional users or supporters of the "Pleasurize Music Foundation."

http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim

As far as I'm aware the DR rating is not an industry standard, at best it's a useful aid for consumer analysis.

[ghettosynth]

I believe codemeter is used by propellerhead without problems...

Yep! It has always been fairly reliable for me. Even for authorizing a computer to use the software as opposed to using the dongle. If you've been with Reason for a while though you undoubtedly have a dongle.

[bobhva]

MAAT also has a free 2 bus plugin that I won't go near because of Codemeter. Codemeter is so old and antiquated, they really need to find a better way. I don't know of another current software that still uses it. If you got a refund, consider yourself lucky.

I already have their free plugin 2BusControl and I like it, that is why I decided to try DRMeter. I guess since 2BusControl is free is does not use the Codemeter copy protection(from what I remember installing it). Also, they did offer me a refund and I wrote them back to accept this - (* Edit 12/23/17) and I did get the refund.

[OMas@MAAT]

MAAT also has a free 2 bus plugin that I won't go near because of Codemeter. Codemeter is so old and antiquated, they really need to find a better way. I don't know of another current software that still uses it. If you got a refund, consider yourself lucky.

Hey jbarish,
Couple of things;

• • 2BusControl has no copy protection.
  • Wibu’s Codemeter is more up to date (and more secure) than PACE’s iLok.
  • As budweiser mentioned, Propellerheads also uses Wibu.

As to the initial posting that started this thread, bobhva apparently went down an offline (no interwebs) authorization path, rather than the very simple on-line path. Not sure if he needed to do that but, since he wasn’t happy, we got a refund out to him. We also provide a short and sweet licensing guide with the install in case anyone needs some questions answered.

Have a healthy, prosperous and rocking’ 2018 folks!

[Compyfox]

Well in that case I'll come out and say it.

If fighting the loudness war is a cause the creators believe in so passionately, then surely it is for the greater good that the DR meter be made freely available thus gaining the most widespread use. There's no reason why a more feature-rich premium version couldn't be added for professional users or supporters of the "Pleasurize Music Foundation."

http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/our-aim

Fun fact (from the history I know):

• the first version of "TT-Dynamic Range Meter" was a collaboration with Brainworx, based upon an unweighted RMS meter (IIRC, Dorrough patent)
• it was originally released in January 2009 as "freeware" (let's call it "education-ware"), and IIRC didn't use any CP at all
• after a short while (I think within the span of one year), the "Pleasurize Music Foundation" (PMF in short) locked the plugin behind an account login, then ultimately behind a paywall ("invest xyz amount per year, get access to your account, get the plugin")
• months passed, nothing happened, the request to "set the plugin free again" grew stronger and stronger, so Brainworx re-released the plugin, with updated weighting filters (flat, a, c, k-weighted, IIRC), different meter scales (incl. K-System v1) and bugfixes under the name "bx_meter" in August 2011, even offered a very fair crossgrade to old TT-DR Meter users (price since then upped to 99USD MSRP, but on sales it's usually always 9USD!). The CP was initially iLok1, but got dropped in favor of Plugin Alliance's own C/R system (and USB license mechanism)
• Not ported by Brainworx however, was the "offline measurement" version
• around that time (2011), the EBU R-128 (or ITU-R BS.1770-x rather) craze really surfaced, covering the topic "DR Metering" as possible part of the specs (I think with BS.1770-2 and up, in form of Peak-to-Loudness Ratio), which was no "wobbly meter, and highly dependent on program material density" anymore, but an add on with additional measurement information and numeric readouts (min/max)
• EBU R-128 was enforced (made into a requirement) all over Europe by August 2012 -- Friedemann Tischmeyer and Ralph Kessler are part of the P/LOUD group that pushed this idea since 2008
• December 2015, Ian Sheppherd in collaboration with MeterPlugs released "Dynameter", which was measuring "PSR" or "Peak-to-Shorterm Loudness" (ITU-R Specs, k-weighted), pushing the topic similarly like PMF/MAAT. Copy protection being C/R if I can trust the FAQ (price: 99USD MSRP)
• June 2017 - MAAT Inc surfaces with a re-re-release of DR Meter (again, RMS unweighted) and DR Offline (now seemingly unlocked to >44/16) - but it needs Wibu/Codemeter and there is no public available manual either

The history of this meter in a nutshell.
Though interesting to note, TT-DR Meter was among the first metering tools to highly popularize "True Peak Measurement". Technically, old "Inspector/InspectorXL" (now with AXIS Plugins) did so as well, but the "re-re-re-releases" of the same plugin suite were not really helping it's popularity.

As far as I'm aware the DR rating is not an industry standard, at best it's a useful aid for consumer analysis.

No, it is indeed not.

But just like with the PRS Meter (Dynameter), the advertising is written in such a form, to give a completely different impression. The following is a 1:1 copy of the DR Offline Meter page:
https://www.maat.digital/droffline/

Is there a good reason to use DR?

Unlike R128 and BS. 1770 meters, DR measures dynamic range from the perspective of a music engineer’s needs. In contrast, R128 and 1770 are designed to control loudness for commercials, not measure dynamic range for music, especially pop music. DR isn’t designed for broadcast loudness control, it’s purpose is to gauge the amount of dynamic range reduction, or the absence of dynamic range contrast. Designed by a member of the EBU ploud committee, the same body that created R128, DR informs an engineer about how much the mix is being or has been “stepped on,” dynamic range-wise, not about “will it pass through a broadcast chain without loudness reduction?”

Important parts marked in red.

On the other hand - "oh really?!". Let's quote from the backstory of the meter:
https://www.maat.digital/drmeter/

The DR algorithm, akin to PLR (Peak–to–Loudness Ratio) or “crest factor,” specifically measures the dynamic density or lack of dynamics caused by overly aggressive dynamic compression and limiting. When the loudest spots of a song are measured, it gives the user an estimate for the "official" DR Value, measured with the companion DROffline

Well look what we have in a well known Metering Suite:


Please take note of the "PLR" value.

In fact, PLR is "akin" to be the same. It gives you a numeric readout as "ratio" (in reality, actually the range in a number between avg signal strength to maximum signal strength). But compared to DR Meter (PMF/MAAT), it uses a weighting filter and ITU-R specs (so either MLk to dBTP max, or SLk to dBTP max) and not unweighted RMS (avg to dBTP max).

This is something that Brainworx actually ported into/overhauled with bx_meter after feedback/requests from the audio engineering community. MAAT Inc will also port this, as "mk2" of the meter - which will be a paid upgrade of course (already announced on the DR Meter page).

I'm sorry to be the party pooper here, but this revival sure feels like a slap in the face in this case.



Not only that, measuring DR or PLR or PSR (or however you want to call it!) is highly "program material dependent". Meaning, the "denser" your mix (more compressed, more peak limited), the lower the value. Going by the value alone (e.g. DR-8 for "pop music") does not fight the loudness war at all. it just gives you an indication if your material is "dynamic" enough. In fact, I pointed this out in 2009 already, and I also critisized that DR-8 for one pop production might be fine, while it's not for another.

Though fun fact, I can easily create outstanding loud yet dynamic masters with a PLR of 12+ with an ITU-R BS.1770-x meter and -14LUFS reference. "ITU-R meters are not made for music" - I highly disagree on that part (see my KVR Marks since 2012).

Don't let the marketing fool you!




Sorry for the long rant, but I think this was important to point out, to know off-hand what you're getting into with this plugin revival. You have to decide for yourself if you want to chase an old "proposal", or stick with modern day tools and reference level recommendations.

Personally, I will keep an eye on MAAT DR Meter (now that mk2 is officially announced). But if it's reliant on Wibu/Codemeter, I might never be able to even try it as I'm not utilizing Wibu/Codemeter keys in my work environment. There are just not enough tools on the market for me to justify this expense.

[Kr3eM]

Sorry for the long rant...

Nah, it's actually people like me and others who actually do care about the subject that should thank you for posts like these.

...so Thanks

[plexuss]

Thanks Compy for all that interesting info! I always wondered how bx_meter tied into the TT meter. My go-to- meter now is Nugen Mastercheck. But I wish they would move some of the numeric metering around so that the groupings make more sense - the two large numbers are short-term PLR and average program LUFS. the small numbers are short-term LUFS and program PLR - they should be grouped so the two large numbers are the program numbers and the small ones are short-term.