I think the Waves meter (a good hardware emulation) in this video are correct.
The triggering of the klanghelm overload indicators shows there 's something wrong imo
Sorry no, it doesn’t.
The VUMT overload indicators don’t actually show a peak overload in your video, they light up in yellow when the signal goes over -6dB, and they light up in red when the signal goes over 0dBFS. The response of Supervision is simply set up differently to VUMT. Supervision’s VU seems to not accurately show the peaks in the signal even though the peak threshold for its own LED indicators seem to be set at -15dBFS. In other words VUMT has a fast response to the rising signal so it integrates the peaks faster whereas Supervision has a slow peak response… which is what Alexander’s test above also shows.
1 Like
The Waves meter in my video has the correct risetime (300 ms to 0db)
So that is my reference
Compared to that i think Supervision is closer but absolutly not perfect
Yes it does have the correct rise time but its LED response is set up differently to the VUMT LED response, and you were talking about the LED. There’s nothing wrong with the LED response in the VUMT meter.
Supervision may be closer to the Waves meter for the particular source signal you used for that test.
Now try the same test with the source signal that Alexander used above. This was the Lofi_Drum_Loop_135_02_Full_LD loop in the supplied Lofi Dreams loop collection. You might get a very different response since the characteristics of the source signal seem to have a big effect upon the result.
1 Like
My soure is a drum loop.
As far as I can see is the VUMT shows about +2 db more then the other two meters. So its not only about the LED response.
TBH that may not be particularly helpful. IMO if we are to do a meaningful test, it would help to use the same source, because the source matters so much here.
Did you do the test with the Lofi_Drum_Loop_135_02_Full_LD loop in the supplied Lofi Dreams loop collection? Did you notice that the result was significantly different to the drum loop you used?
I don’t think anyone is saying this is only about the LED response.
Re the SuperVision VU meter, there are two modes. One called VU dB (just a Steinberg designation, not a ‘broadcasting standard’) shows dB, but has the ballistics and dynamics of an analog VU meter, with adjustable ballistic parameters. Note that that scale has no dB offset value. The other is called VU dbFS and is a normal VU meter, with adjustable dB offset, default -18 dbFS.
Steinberg give no words at all to this in the Plugins reference manual, but you can work it out from studying the meter behaviour. I am not the world’s most experienced engineer, but I think VU dB mode is an invention of Steinberg, as I have not seen this on other VU meters or plugins. It’s actually quite a nice idea.
My last contribution on this:
Same video with Lofi_Drum_Loop_135_02_Full_LD
VUMT meter reading 2 to 3db difference afaics (to high)
Can you try also the free one from TB Pro Audio? I haven’t waves VU…
Regarding your video seems that waves is close to Supervision, but seems that Supervision is lower in my thoughts…
@delta What VUMT Mode do you have set for the Klanghelm VU meter? There are three: VUMT 1, VUMT 2, and ideal. This can make a difference - the settings affect the ballistics. There’s a small amount of information about this in the manual. In any case, try varying it. The last word on this has not been said yet. I have always found the Klanghelm to be a very fine meter in all respects.
1 Like
The Waves meter has the correct (balistic) hardware emulation imo .
My conclusion is based on comparing this meter with the Klanghelm meter.
I’ll stop now,
Delta
I think the VU in Supervision could be more adjustable – to whatever value the user wants, really. (Now it’s only -18, -20 and -24 dBFS = 0 on the VU). So for a lot of music the needles will be pinned most of the time.
Look at Waves for example:
Range: 4 dB–26 dB Default: 18 dB
Or Klanghelm, which goes from 0–24, with even more detailed adjustment.
What do you think? This must be a good suggestion for a future update or what? __ /__
Will be nice.and for me it’s strange that for true VU metering you need to switch in the setting to Dbfs. I think we need it by default for VU meter. And of course once again will be nice to have more options to adjust this VU meter in Supervision more correctly…
I agree. I think we should suggest it to Steinberg.
Btw, if you use Klanghelm there are some nice additional presets avaliable for download: Klanghelm
@Hans-Olav thanks - I never knew about those presets. I think the Klanghelm meter is superb.
Yes it’s and amazing tool for sure!
They’re adding more range settings in to the LUFS meter in supervision so it may be that they do the same for the VU meter.
1 Like
I think VU meters are just generally pretty antiquated these days.
Why not just learn the ballistics of the track meters and then rely on BS.1770 loudness meters instead?
Problem(s) solved.
@MattiasNYC Yes, but many people are comfortable with them and like them and have learned them. I use both! Like 35mm film, I think VU meters will never die.
Well… honestly why Steinberg included VU metering in Cubase 12 then? vu meter is amazing gain staging tool…
1 Like