![]() I’d suggest you try that as a starting point. As mentioned before (as suggested by Bob), -18LUFS might be a good compromise. So what you might be dealing with is making a compromise. The channel meters on a DAW can only be used as a rough guide when it comes to matching average levels. I don’t think you benefit from setting the peak to the same level for every track at all. And there’d be a similar lack of parity when compared to a VU meter. For example,the digital peak response for a snare drum track would be radically different from that of a strings track and yet both tracks might read the same LUFS integrated value. The channel meters on a DAW are normally digital peak meters (which DON’T show RMS values at all!) so there’s really no direct correlation with loudness meters. I think you might benefit by taking a very close look at what you are trying to achieve and the theory behind it. And, of course, there’s always a compromise when using a limiter. I couldn’t really suggest a ‘safe’ setting for all kinds of material. Peak Level and Authorised Peak Compression values).Īs suggested by Bob, I would think normalising to -18LUFS should get you into the right ballpark.ĭo you think by setting up the limiter could harm the audio performance? Any safe suggestion for all kind of tracks? (vocal, bass, guitar, drums etc) If you’re using the batch processor, the result is also going to depend on how you set up the limiter (Max. In other words, tracks normalised to -23LUFS will have different digital peak values and different dB VU readings but will still show -23LUFS on an LU meter. This may be stating the obvious and I may have misunderstood what you are trying to do, but isn’t the issue because normalising to LUFS is not normalising to digital peak or dB VU values? I’ve tried batch processing with the Loudness normaliser at-23 LUFS value, but always it gives me different results than my VU meter plugins. Is there any way to achieve the -18 dBFS = 0 dB VU for my audio tracks other than to use a VU-METER plugin one by one?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |