Actually it is. Just add lufs meter options to all tracks in mixconsole.
It would be a really useful feature, i’ve been dreaming of such a thing for several years now and I was so much excited when I saw this in reaper
You can find an example on 16.32 of this video: New features in REAPER v6.35 | LUFS track meters and more - YouTube
1 Like
Why do you need a lufs meter on a single track? What would the target signal be? You do know that the more tracks you put on the higher the lufs is going to be in the long run?
1 Like
LUFs calculates loudness in a different way to the meters in cubase, so I can see mixing uses where this may be important to a new generation of engineers who ae less interested in peaks, more interested in perception and average loudness. Just because we don’t do it that way, doesn’t mean it isn’t an interesting idea or a potentially useful one.
1 Like
I see where you’re coming from, but loudness isn’t measured on the input, it’s measured on the output. That would mean you’d have to touch a kick drum with a q-tip to reach of required loudness on the input. It’s nonsensical. Perceive loudness is applied to the output of a sound. The input signal of a guitar is going to be louder sounding than the input of a bass guitar. Because if the way we perceive sound. But the energy of the bass guitar is going to be greater than that over the six string guitar which, if you went by the method you’re proposing, you wouldn’t even hear the bass.
It’s all about a translation of information, you are quite right though (in our current way of doing things) but understanding how each element contributes to the overall perceived loudness may be useful - I’m not sure as I’ve never tried mixing in this new way. Dan Worrall would be able to explore the potentials of this technique and might flat out discount it - but I’m seeing more and more features in Reaper that turn out to be fundamental to achieving the sound we hear on the best recordings that are coming out right now: I never thought I would need to invert the phase of a send until Reaper, until Dan Worrall
1 Like
I checked out Dan Worrall a bit. Seems like he’s getting paid to mouthpiece for the companies, until he has some professional bands under his belt, I’m talking about recorded instruments, I wouldn’t give them too much worth. But anyhow good luck.
fair enough, I use him as an example of someone who critically analyses audio techniques and demonstrates process, he’s done some work with fabfilter - but he’s up front about what is paid, what is personal.
The Op might not be talking about recording real instruments, we aren’t all into them.
I think you discount too quickly, but then I don’t know you from adam - you may be sat in front of a 48 track console you’ve had since the 1990s in a treated room or you may be someone in their bedroom. You seem to have worked out a system for deciding who is worth listening to - so best of luck to you. But your response initially didn’t answer the question asked - it just asked more questions. Maybe you don’t know it all - and neither does Dan 
(and certainly I don’t - but in music, it pays to keep your mind open (that’s one thing I do know!)
Another thing I know is that I’ve just doubled some of the listens to your tracks on SoundCloud - they deserve more attention, but like my own tracks, would benefit from better mixing/engineering. Maybe your criteria for taking advice is wrong?
1 Like
But the energy of the bass guitar is going to be greater than that over the six string guitar which, if you went by the method you’re proposing, you wouldn’t even hear the bass.
If you’ll use only the meters - maybe, though I don’t really understand what and how should you do, to achieve that as a result. But if you won’t use meters only and add your ears… who knows…