MAutoLoudness

[Lotus9]

I saw this cool plugin and it reminded me of the type of functionality often seen in Melda plugins. Do you think you can make a plugin that can do this? Please?

https://www.klangfreund.com/lufsmeter/

[steve2KVR]

++++++++++++++++1KMG

[Svama]

I have already asked one year ago for something like this:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 8&t=443399

+1

[mesaone]

MModernCompressor can be set to a target RMS value. That's the same kind of concept, although not exactly the same as what loudness conform utilities like LC2N and the Klangfreund meter do.

[steve2KVR]

...I've used the Klangfreund:lufs meter and its workflow for me was elegant/simple...however I achieve the same effective outcome with MUtilite:gain in front of MLoudnessAnalyser at the very end of my 2Bus processing chain...fwiw.../s~

[Lotus9]

I have already asked one year ago for something like this:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 8&t=443399

+1

He seemed to blow off the idea, saying it was too simple, and that you could just do it manually. Yea, and you can manually ride a fader, so why did he create the MAutoVolume plugin? You can manually do lots of things, the idea is to make things simpler, more efficient.

Let's say someone wants to set all of their tracks to the same LUFS integrated level, like in the video I linked to. With that LUFS meter plugin, all they have to do is copy an instance of the plugin to every track, play the entire piece and then hit one button, that's it!

To do this manually, you would have to put a plugin on each track, play it all the way through, then click on the first track, look at the integrated level, then calculate the difference to your target, then click on your gain knob, then type in the dB difference. Then go to the next track, open up the Loudness Analyzer, calculate the difference to hit your target, click your gain knob and type in the dB. The next track, same thing over and over 15 or 20 or 30 plus times, to do something that can be achieved by literally hitting one button.

And if you look at the video, the adjustments that the LUFS meter plugin makes has two decimal places e.g. -5.48LUFS. But, unlike other meters, all of the loudness meters I have seen only have one decimal place, so calculating two decimal places would take even longer, if you wanted to be that exact.

You would be looking at tracks with LUFS integrated levels, like: -18.49, -19.43, -17.87, -.20.32 etc. and you would have to calculate how much to make each one hit -23.00 or whatever your target is. And, like I said, do this countless times, when you could just hit one button and it's done.

If he thinks that the plugin is so simple, then it must not be very hard to make, but people obviously want it, so why not just make it and include it with the Free Bundle? Then, he'd have the only free plugin that can do this, and it would be one more way to introduce people to his other plugins. Or, just charge $50 for it. Either way works for me.

The plugin that originally led me to his site was actually MAutoVolume. I was looking for an alternative to Waves Vocal Rider, and he had the best one, so I checked out his other plugins and saw how great they are. But for him to not create a plugin that can do what the LUFS meter can do is rather absurd, especially, as I said - if it would be easy to make, because I have explained how much time it can save, and streamlining your workflow / saving time / increasing efficiency should be one of the top reasons for creating any plugin or adding a feature it.

[mesaone]

I don't think it's absurd, Vojtech likely has a lot in the works that isn't focused on that side of things. Overall, he's very receptive to feature requests - moreso than any other developer I've interacted with, and frankly I think it can sometimes lead to unrealistic expectations or requests for features that only a few people would actually make use of. He has his own vision for Meldaproduction, and maybe MAutoLoudness is too far in the periphery of that vision.

[Lotus9]

I don't think it's absurd, Vojtech likely has a lot in the works that isn't focused on that side of things. Overall, he's very receptive to feature requests - moreso than any other developer I've interacted with, and frankly I think it can sometimes lead to unrealistic expectations or requests for features that only a few people would actually make use of. He has his own vision for Meldaproduction, and maybe MAutoLoudness is too far in the periphery of that vision.

But at the rate he works at, and given that he said it's a simple idea - it shouldn't take him very long to do it. That was part of my point. I mean, if he could do it in a day or two, you don't think he should? It is a very simple function, but combined with the ability to sync the plugins together, it can save a lot of time and cut down on tedious, mundane tasks.

[MeldaProduction]

Time is the essence . Spending pretious time on something that seems pointless to me while there's lots of stuff not pointeless to me is just wrong.
I must say I don't really like this idea at all. It only provides some sort of initial gain, which you change using the faders afterwards anyway, not mentioning all the other processing. And moving a fader is far quicker than adding a plugin to all tracks and then analyzing the whole song, just to get a gain...

[Lotus9]

Time is the essence . Spending pretious time on something that seems pointless to me while there's lots of stuff not pointeless to me is just wrong.
I must say I don't really like this idea at all. It only provides some sort of initial gain, which you change using the faders afterwards anyway, not mentioning all the other processing. And moving a fader is far quicker than adding a plugin to all tracks and then analyzing the whole song, just to get a gain...

I've only been learning about recording / mixing for around a month, but from what I've read, you're not supposed to only use the faders to set your levels, because the closer the faders are to unity, the higher the resolution, so you want to use them as little as possible. Instead, it's best to use a gain/trim knob or plugin to set your levels, so that you don't have to use the faders as much. Faders are to be used more for things like automation as opposed to setting your overall mixing levels, which should be mostly done with a gain/trim function.

So, in terms of gain staging... you record each track at a decent level, peaking no higher than -10dBFS, then you use a gain/trim plugin on each track to get your levels close to what you want, then you use your faders to tweak it, then adjust the output gain on each plugin i.e. EQ, compression to keep the level the same as before the plugin.

[steve2KVR]

...well, fwiw... ...

1/ I've used the K.lufs meter, and it's a great little plug, looks and works very nicely...

2/ However, since I do use a "faders up" approach for the most part, for me the easier/quicker solution is to put a single instance of MLoudnessAnalizer on the 2Bus. Then "solo" anything that needs to be looked at, "pre/post," sub-group, aux, etc., making any adjustments from there. This won't get you the "ganged one button trick shot," but I've never used that anyway.

3/ the phrase "supposed to," imho, should be reserved for religion/politics/parents/gs discussions... ...not audio...there's just too many different ways to get "there" from "here"...hth.../s~

[mesaone]

I've only been learning about recording / mixing for around a month, but from what I've read, you're not supposed to only use the faders to set your levels, because the closer the faders are to unity, the higher the resolution, so you want to use them as little as possible. Instead, it's best to use a gain/trim knob or plugin to set your levels, so that you don't have to use the faders as much. Faders are to be used more for things like automation as opposed to setting your overall mixing levels, which should be mostly done with a gain/trim function.

You're mistaken about what "resolution" means in this context. Since most audio faders have a logarithmic taper, they have a higher control resolution at and around unity. All this means is that each unit of distance represents a more drastic level change toward the bottom of the fader throw, and a less drastic level change per unit of distance toward the top of the fader throw. Look at the level markers next to this fader for an example. http://i.imgur.com/YX5J5hE.gif

Control resolution has nothing to do with the audio quality or resolution of the audio files. Faders are 100% without a doubt for setting levels, whether that is static level or levels over time (automation). That's their purpose in life, a fader is a dedicated level control, no more and no less.

[Lotus9]

You're mistaken about what "resolution" means in this context. Since most audio faders have a logarithmic taper, they have a higher control resolution at and around unity. All this means is that each unit of distance represents a more drastic level change toward the bottom of the fader throw, and a less drastic level change per unit of distance toward the top of the fader throw. Look at the level markers next to this fader for an example. http://i.imgur.com/YX5J5hE.gif

Control resolution has nothing to do with the audio quality or resolution of the audio files. Faders are 100% without a doubt for setting levels, whether that is static level or levels over time (automation). That's their purpose in life, a fader is a dedicated level control, no more and no less.

Yes, that was my understanding of resolution, but doesn't that mean you can set your levels more accurately the closer you stay to unity on the faders?

Also, isn't it a good idea to have all of your tracks set to the same level when panning? Here's what I've been doing. I record all of my tracks within a certain RMS range and never peak above -10dBFS. Then I use a utility plugin to set all the tracks to the same RMS or LUFS integrated level. Then I do the panning. Then I tweak the levels with the faders to get my basic mix. Then I add EQ / compression / reverb etc. and adjust the output gain on each plugin to keep my levels in tact.

This seems like a very structured / organized way of working to me. Do you disagree?

[mesaone]

Ok, sorry I thought you were under the impression that the audio resolution would change.

The fader resolution isn't less accurate per se (a 10 dB change will still be a 10 dB change no matter where on the fader you are) but small adjustments to level require more precise moves the further down on the fader you are. Most DAWs have modifier keys to temporarily increase the resolution 10x (so-called "fine" adjustment).

When panning, there's no rule of thumb for level. Unless you're working with two mono tracks that together form a stereo source, where keeping the levels of L and R tracks equal will retain the original panorama of the source.

The way you're going about things seems circuitous to me. Of course, there's no right or wrong way to work, but I don't see the utility in normalizing all material before mixing. If this is something you choose to do, chances are your DAW has clip gain and/or normalization tools that allow you to do this quickly without having to insert any trim plug-in.

Here's the way I work. Assume the mics have all been set up and we're doing sound check...

Set preamp levels, anticipating the required headroom. Set up cue mixes, adjust preamp levels during soundcheck as necessary. Do my recording. Set rough levels and pan, then do my editing - which may include changing clip gain on a few clips. Audition everything in context and add my eq, compression, sends, etc. Then do mix passes as needed, sometimes using trim automation on top of other passes instead of punching in.

No gain or trim plug-ins there. I just don't need them, with the notable exception of using plug-ins to adjust mid/side balance (blue cat gain suite dual) for some things like reverb returns, stereo room mics, etc. Between VCAs, channel faders, trim automation, clip gain, makeup gain, I already have a number of gain stages and I don't need to add an additional one.

[steve2KVR]

...oh, and also consider that most Melda plugs have input/pre, output/post with AGC/set parameters (AGC typically resets the output/post value)...hth.../s~