Hi,
Strange issue with Loudness analysis on a Montage :
Analysing a single track yields a good number, but doing the whole range gets me a good value for the whole but weird individual values
I have to add that there are sidelined tracks and ref tracks in this montage
Best regards
Mark Haliday
What do you mean with âindividual valuesâ ?
Also, WaveLab analyses clips, titles or the whole montage, but not tracks (you mention âsingle trackâ).
Thanks for answering, sorry, by single track (in shobizz speak 
) I meant a clip or region.
If I analyse each region or clip one by one, I get a technically correct value (I checked with my Youlean Loudness Meter 2)
If I analyse the whole montage, as my image shows, the overall reading is ok as well, but the readings for each region are completely off (here in my example -9,2 becomes -3,8 LUFS )
Thanks again
Mark Haliday
This WaveLab tool analyses the clip with all plugins (clips, track, output, montage). Are you use your Youlean Loudness Meter analyses the same signal?
If you want to make a true comparison, render the clips to files and do the analysis on this raw final material.
Hi,
Ok, so obviously I am not expressing myself correctly :
If I have a montage with 10 regions (typical CD style montage), with a plugin chain which ends with a brickwall limiter, and right behind, a Lufs meter, Youlean for example.
As I am playing sections of the montage, zapping around, I see that my loudness is floating around -9 LUFS , with my TP ceiling on my limiter at -1 dBFS TP, a very classic configuration on high energy music. I do the level balancing by ear but I am trying to get a feel of the LUFS scale as I have to digest changing from 20 years of looking at the wavelab RMS meter
Now, If I select a clip/region and use the offline montage analyser tool, I get as the example I posted -9,2 dB LUFS. My limiter is a bit CPU intensive so I donât often run the whole montage anaysis, since this is time consuming.
But when I do run the whole range analysis, I get a value of -8,4 LUFS, which remains consistent with the sort of âpunk rockâ style content.
HOWEVER : I also asked for the specific reading for each track, and THAT is where the result is not consistent : How come my track which was at -9,2 LUFS suddenly appears at -3,4 LUFS ?? I donât understand where the analysis tool got that reading from ?!?!
Thnaks again
Mark
I could provide the whole montage if you desire, for obvious reasons I cannot publish this here as it is an unreleased project. But I tried in another montage and it did the same
Ok, further testing shows that this happens when I have plugins on the master section (âEffectsâ or âFinal Effectsâ = same outcome).
If the same plugin is put in the track inspector screen, same settings, no problem. So it definitely is a Master section issue
Best regards
mark
I will do a test on Monday, but again, I want to recall that all plugins, both montage and master section, are meant to be taken into account, as it would happen when rendering.
Also, if you put a loudness meter at the of a clip, it wonât take into account post gain, track processing, output processing and master section processing.
After reviewing your report more closely, there is indeed a problem: if there are Master Section plugins, the titles are processed twice with these plugins during the analysis, resulting in incorrect loudness values for them. This will be fixed in version 12.0.30.
2 Likes
Actually I had a sort of intuition about this possibility. Because to obtain a level of -3.8 or around that, you really have to push hard on the limiter !
However despite all this, I want to thank you for pushing Wavelab in the direction of making it easier to get proper readings in LUFS for the whole regions in the middle of the work. And the metanormalizer to arrange source tracks on one track at for example -14 LUFS to be able to check between a mastered version or its original at comparable LUFS levels.
Although I have long defended the idea for that a good mastering should sound good everywhere, squeezing stuff just for the CD is becoming ridiculous, knowing extra dynamic (not much though) is now available on streaming
The dream thing would be to have a continuous background process but that would need a lot of CPU power !
Thanks
Mark
1 Like