Quote:
Originally Posted by BethHarmon
As an aside, I'm still not sure why in 2021 we are not all just using LUFS-I, LUFS-S, LUFS-M and (true) peak...I'm sure there must be a good reason
|
It's an excellent question and one asked the most by my students.
One reason that I can think of from the top of my head, is that in very short oneshots like those used in game sound effects, you cannot get an accurate measurement using the ITU-R BS.1770 recommendations/algorithm.
For me and some others, even in the longer program material, the Orban implementation of the CBS algorithm gives a better result than the ITU proposal.
The ITU gained a lot of traction and now may be considered the industry standard, but there are better more geeky ways to measure loudness, that don't fail where the ITU fails.
The ITU is an excellent all-around catch made for broadcasting and used mostly on visual media like television. In music, you can use better algorithms but they also use ITU because using one standard is better for the industry as a whole, which is fine.
After all, if you know what you are doing, then you don't have any problems. For example, I remember when the ITU meters got introduced in the market, I measured my old material which was made using a calibrated studio, RMS meters, and with proper gain-staging based on official recommendations from ITU, SMPTE, etc. Guess what, my old material was not more or less than 0.7 dB within the EBU R128 (I work in EU).
For me, a true psycho-physical instrument would understand the material and give a consistent scale on the output. I think that this is where this will head when scientific advancements and commercial technology permit it.