![]() ![]() Would it make sense for JUCE to include a module for LUFS, so that every new learner doesn’t have to wrestle in futility with ITU-R BS.Does anybody have insight they can share into how the major streaming services calculate LUFS, specifically the K-weighting filters?.I will leave a couple of questions that presently weigh on my mind: This doesn’t quite match the frequency response of Klangfreund’s K-weighting, but it’s close enough for government work, especially if you add 0.07dB to your final result. state = dsp::IIR::Arra圜oefficients::makeFirstOrderHighPass(SampleRate, 60.0f) Personally, I use K-weighting filters of type ![]() I have heard of people converting everything to 48kHz just to make the K-math easier. Klangfreund’s LUFS source code on GitHub ( GitHub - klangfreund/LUFSMeter: An implementation of the loudness measurement algorithm ITU-R BS.1770), which uses an algorithm in SecondOrderIIRFilter::prepareToPlay() to rate-adjust the filter coefficients given in the standard.With two output arguments, return the unique prime factors pf and their multiplicities. The prime factorization is defined as prod (pf) q where every element of pf is a prime number. iZotope’s suggestion to use “a 4 dB high-shelf above about 2 kHz as well as a 12dB/oct high pass filter at 100 Hz” ( ) : pf factor (q): pf, n factor (q) Return the prime factorization of q.This presents us with a philosophical question as to whether it is actually important to match the official standard for calculating LUFS or whether is it indeed more practical merely to agree with whatever other flawed LUFS meter that your user has open alongside yours.Īs you struggle through this, here are a couple of resources you may find helpful: If you haven’t already, open up your favorite LUFS plugins at the same time and see how much diversity of measurement they all report from the same source material. The developer community then returned this gesture by implementing every new LUFS meter with a unique K-filter design. For context, my sense of what happened here is that the standards authors sent an obscene gesture to the developer community by specifying the LUFS K-weighting filters only in terms of coefficients for a 48kHz implementation, to the exclusion of traditionally helpful metrics such as -3dB or -6dB cutoff frequencies, Q-factors or dB/octave filter slopes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |