You are here

Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Uncle Freddie » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:51 pm

Hi,

Out of frustration recently, it dawned on me that I wanted a utility that I have not seen anywhere: the ability to normalize a file to a particular dBTP value.

I do have plugins, like FabFilter Pro-L2, that feature limiting to a particular dBTP, but being a plugin, you have to bounce through it, as opposed to a batch workflow on whole files. Plus, like any plugin of its kind, it has a sound.

Standalone applications are everywhere to normalize to a particular dBFS, but I have not seen anything offering dBTP normalization.

Is this an oversight by the audio software development community, or am I fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of true-peak normalization?


Thanks.
Fred
Uncle Freddie
Poster
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:00 am
Location: Detroit, USA

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:58 pm

Uncle Freddie wrote:Is this an oversight by the audio software development community, or am I fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of true-peak normalization?

The latter.

The strong trend is away from any and every form of peak-normalisation and towards loudness-normalisation instead.

The only peak-related aspect of loudness-normalisation is the requirement to keep transient peaks below -1dBTP (or below -3dBTP if a lossy codec format is employed in the delivery chain) and that's just to avoid transient distortion from inter-sample peaks (especially within lossy codecs!).

So in a world where the overriding requirement is to normalise the integrated loudness value of each track, why would anyone need a tool that normalises to a True-Peak value?
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 24840
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:51 pm

Uncle Freddie wrote:Hi,

Out of frustration recently, it dawned on me that I wanted a utility that I have not seen anywhere: the ability to normalize a file to a particular dBTP value.

I do have plugins, like FabFilter Pro-L2, that feature limiting to a particular dBTP, but being a plugin, you have to bounce through it, as opposed to a batch workflow on whole files. Plus, like any plugin of its kind, it has a sound.

Standalone applications are everywhere to normalize to a particular dBFS, but I have not seen anything offering dBTP normalization.

Is this an oversight by the audio software development community, or am I fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of true-peak normalization?


Thanks.
Fred

There is no peak problem until you convert D/A.

Make the dBFS -12 to avoid clipping. TP is just nonsense that people who do not really know what is going on in the digital world wrt the analog one, talk about so as to be able to maximise loudness without problems.

You might get away with less but why? The DR is so large and the noise floor so low you could go -18 or more and still have a great analog version. Our AH Qu32 allows another 18dB before clipping AFTER the red light peak shows up, which is 18 dB above 0 on their meter.

Then turn the knob on the amp to the right to make it as loud as you want. You do not need the digital to be as high as possible to make peoples ears bleed when it is played back.

And if you are staying in the digital domain for a CD then like Hugh said use a LUFS (aka LKFS) meter and follow the new standards.
Loudness units relative to full scale (LUFS) is a synonym for LKFS that was introduced in EBU R128. Read EBU R128 for more.

This was meant to help tame commercials and to normalise program levels on TV so people dont have to keep turning the volume knob.
It failed. I have to adjust mine all the time and many commercials are still way too loud so I just mute them all.

PBS in the colonies has a slightly different level. And dont pay no never mind with the assortment of numbers social media sites want.

There are others: https://www.provideocoalition.com/wp-co ... glish.jpeg
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:15 pm

hobbyist wrote:Loudness units relative to full scale (LUFS) is a synonym for LKFS that was introduced in EBU R128.

LKFS came first, as it was introduced in the original Loudness-Normalisation spec, the ITU-R BS.1170 (now BS.1170-4). The term is an abbreviation of "Loudness (K-weighted) relative to Full Scale".

When the EBU's 'P-Loud' group set about writing their own practical implementation documents for European broadcasters -- now know as the R128 standard -- they decided to change the term to the simpler (and easier to pronounce as a word) LUFS , short for "Loudness Units relative to Full Scale".

Many manufacturers have adopted the LUFS term, but the American standards bodies have stuck with the LKFS nomenclature, as have some other standards documents in other regions.

So LUFS and LKFS are actually exactly the same thing, although some confusion sometimes arises as the American broadcast standards for implementing Loudness Normalisation requires slightly different targets and margins (specified in LKFS) compared to the R128 standards (specified in LUFS).

This was meant to help tame commercials and to normalise program levels on TV so people dont have to keep turning the volume knob. It failed. I have to adjust mine all the time and many commercials are still way too loud

I wouldn't say it's been a complete failure -- it has definitely improved the situation considerably for the exchange of long-form HDTV programmes, as well as for level matching between (HD) channels (during long-form programmes). It's also made a big improvement on internet music streaming services, and -- most importantly of all -- it is encouraging the return to dynamic music instead of hyper-compressed, ear-destroying, garbage!

But adverts have always been a problem, and reigning in their producers was never going to be an easy fix. It was hoped that they would get on-board with the concept and self-regulate... but sadly they haven't, in general. The Integrated Loudness value doesn't work on short programmes, so the broadcast specs are tightening up on maximum peak values for the Momentary and Short/Sliding meter figures -- and the reason we are now on the fourth update of BS.1770 is because it is very much still a work in progress. Both the underlying technology and its practical implementation are still being tweaked and evaluated -- particularly for short-form programmes, adverts, and 'interstitial' items (station idents, trailers , etc). But with different broadcasters and standards bodies involved all around the world it takes a long time to test new ideas, assess the results, and get new agreements through!

It will get there, eventually, and the basic idea is certainly a massive improvement on what we had before!

There are others: https://www.provideocoalition.com/wp-co ... glish.jpeg

The standard loudness target levels for broadcast HDTV are -23LUFS in Europe, or -24LKFS in America (with the rest of world aligning their own national standards to one of those two).

The AES has recommended -16LUFS as the optimum loudness target for online streaming services, and some are there already, but most are a little hotter at -14 or -15LUFS - -although it appears few if any streamers actually use the BS.1770 technology to assess loudness at the moment; they use their own bespoke (but similar) systems.

Broadcast radio doesn't yet employ this form of loudness-normalisation, but there are moves to introduce it in the not too distant future, probably with an initial target of -15 or -16LUFS...

But the end goal is to get everyone down to -23LUFS for consistency and to maximise dynamic range (once issues with consumer equipment headphone volume and peak-normalised protection are sorted out.... )

Here is my explanation of the tech and it's aims: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/end-loudness-war
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 24840
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:10 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
hobbyist wrote:Loudness units relative to full scale (LUFS) is a synonym for LKFS that was introduced in EBU R128.

Actually, it was the other way around!

True, but LUFS replaced LKFS in the standard, in spite of the way the response I cut and pasted confused things:)

LKFS, I think, came from the K weighting used by Bob Katz, whose book on mastering discussed.

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
LKFS was introduced in the original Loudness-Normalisation spec, the ITU-R BS.1170 (now BS.1170-4). The term is an abbreviation of "Loudness (K-weighted) relative to Full Scale".

When the EBU's 'P-Loud' group set about writing their own practical implementation documents for European broadcasters -- now know as the R128 standard -- they decided to change the term to the simpler (and easier to pronounce as a word) LUFS , short for "Loudness Units relative to Full Scale".

Most manufacturers have adopted the LUFS term, but the American standards bodies have stuck with the LKFS nomenclature.

So LUFS and LKFS are actually exactly the same thing, although some confusion sometimes arises as the American broadcast standards for implementing Loudness Normalisation requires slightly different targets and margins (specified in LKFS) compared to the R128 standards (specified in LUFS).

This was meant to help tame commercials and to normalise program levels on TV so people dont have to keep turning the volume knob. It failed. I have to adjust mine all the time and many commercials are still way too loud

I wouldn't say it's been a complete failure -- it has definitely improved the situation considerably for the exchange of long-form HDTV programmes, as well as for level matching between (HD) channels (during long-form programmes). It's also made a big improvement on internet music streaming services, and -- most importantly of all -- it is encouraging the return to dynamic music instead of hyper-compressed, ear-destroying, garbage!

But adverts have always been a problem, and reigning in their producers was never going to be an easy fix. It was hoped that they would get on-board with the concept and self-regulate... but sadly they haven't, in general. The Integrated Loudness value doesn't work on short programmes, so the broadcast specs are tightening up on maximum peak values for the Momentary and Short/Sliding meter figures -- and the reason we are now on the fourth update of BS.1770 is because it is very much still a work in progress. Both the underlying technology and its practical implementation are still being tweaked and evaluated -- particularly for short-form programmes, adverts, and 'interstitial' items (station idents, trailers , etc). But with different broadcasters and standards bodies involved all around the world it takes a long time to test new ideas, assess the results, and get new agreements through!

It will get there, eventually, and the basic idea is certainly a massive improvement on what we had before!

You are more optimistic than I am.

Hugh Robjohns wrote:

There are others: https://www.provideocoalition.com/wp-co ... glish.jpeg

The standard loudness target levels for broadcast HDTV are -23LUFS in Europe, or -24LKFS in America (with the rest of world aligning their own national standards to one of those two).

The AES has recommended -16LUFS as the optimum loudness target for online streaming services, and some are there already, but most are a little hotter at -14 or -15LUFS - -although it appears few if any streamers actually use the BS.1770 technology to assess loudness at the moment; they use their own bespoke (but similar) systems.

Broadcast radio doesn't yet employ this form of loudness-normalisation, but there are moves to introduce it in the not too distant future, probably with an initial target of -15 or -16LUFS...

But the end goal is to get everyone down to -23LUFS for consistency and to maximise dynamic range (once issues with consumer equipment headphone volume and peak-normalised protection are sorted out.... )

Here is my explanation of the tech and it's aims: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/end-loudness-war
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:43 pm

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood your earlier post.

hobbyist wrote:...LUFS replaced LKFS in the standard...

So yes, it did in the R128 EBU standard. But its not a universal replacement: the source ITU-R BS.1770-4 document, from which the R128 implementation is derived, has always referred to LKFS, as I explained earlier, and the loudness-normalisation standards in several countries and regions still use LKFS including the American ATSC/85 standard).

If anyone is suffering persistent insomnia, here's a link to a PDF of BS.1770-4

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1770-4-201510-I!!PDF-E.pdf

LKFS, I think, came from the K weighting used by Bob Katz, whose book on mastering discussed.

Sorry... But no. K-Weighting is the bespoke two-stage spectral shaping filter employed in the loudness assessment process described in BS.1770-4. See Appendix 1 on page 3 of the document above.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the lovely Bob Katz and his thoughtful K-Metering scheme -- the digital-meter-with-headroom-referenced-to-an-acoustic-sound-pressure-level system.

You are more optimistic than I am.

Probably! :D I think it's worthwhile to embrace an intelligently conceived and well-engineered problem-solving scheme like this, and to provide constructive feedback to its developers from relevant field use to help improve and focus its performance.... But maybe that's just me! :lol: I have seen several substantial improvements to it over the years I've been using it and training others to use it. It's certainly not the perfect solution under all circumstances yet, and it may never be, but I appreciate what it has brought to the party and remain hopeful for what it promises.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 24840
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Kwackman » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:20 pm

hobbyist wrote:This was meant to help tame commercials and to normalise program levels on TV so people dont have to keep turning the volume knob.
It failed. I have to adjust mine all the time and many commercials are still way too loud so I just mute them all.

It might not have caught all the ads etc yet, but recently hopping from one TV channel to another is a much less stressful procedure than a few years ago! YMMV
User avatar
Kwackman
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1410
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Belfast
Cubase, guitars.

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:56 am

Kwackman wrote:
hobbyist wrote:This was meant to help tame commercials and to normalise program levels on TV so people dont have to keep turning the volume knob.
It failed. I have to adjust mine all the time and many commercials are still way too loud so I just mute them all.

It might not have caught all the ads etc yet, but recently hopping from one TV channel to another is a much less stressful procedure than a few years ago! YMMV

My milage is terrible:)
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:05 am

Hugh Robjohns wrote:Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood your earlier post.

hobbyist wrote:...LUFS replaced LKFS in the standard...

So yes, it did in the R128 EBU standard. But its not a universal replacement: the source ITU-R BS.1770-4 document, from which the R128 implementation is derived, has always referred to LKFS, as I explained earlier, and the loudness-normalisation standards in several countries and regions still use LKFS including the American ATSC/85 standard).

If anyone is suffering persistent insomnia, here's a link to a PDF of BS.1770-4

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1770-4-201510-I!!PDF-E.pdf

Since LKFS=LUFS except for the acronym the real item of interest is which standard are you going to use, or may be required to use.

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
LKFS, I think, came from the K weighting used by Bob Katz, whose book on mastering discussed.

Sorry... But no. K-Weighting is the bespoke two-stage spectral shaping filter employed in the loudness assessment process described in BS.1770-4. See Appendix 1 on page 3 of the document above.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the lovely Bob Katz and his thoughtful K-Metering scheme -- the digital-meter-with-headroom-referenced-to-an-acoustic-sound-pressure-level system.

Sorry. My confusion. It was years ago when I read Katz' book.
I had thought that I had remembered he had a filter that was the source for LKFS. I plead senior moment:)



Hugh Robjohns wrote:
You are more optimistic than I am.

Probably! :D I think it's worthwhile to embrace an intelligently conceived and well-engineered problem-solving scheme like this, and to provide constructive feedback to its developers from relevant field use to help improve and focus its performance.... But maybe that's just me! :lol: I have seen several substantial improvements to it over the years I've been using it and training others to use it. It's certainly not the perfect solution under all circumstances yet, and it may never be, but I appreciate what it has brought to the party and remain hopeful for what it promises.

I fear that it is a well meaning attempt that will fail due to reality, and greed of advertisers , as well as stupidity of garage bands thinking louder is better. I recall a post on one forum where some kid asked how to make his picture of the recording solid blue, meaning he wanted to compress everything so it was at 0dBFS everywhere.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Sam Spoons » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:52 am

If I'm understanding the several interesting discussions/explanations of 'Loudness Normalisation' recently, the point of it is that his 'solid blue' track will be reduced in level so it sits at the average volume for the delivery medium instead of being the loudest track there.
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Jedi Poster
Posts: 10359
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Manchester UK
Finally taking this recording lark seriously (and recording my Gypsy Jazz CD)........

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:46 am

hobbyist wrote:...the real item of interest is which standard are you going to use, or may be required to use.

If you're mixing form a broadcaster the required standard will be set out in the contract and/or delivery documentation. But in reality all of the different broadcast Loudness standards (EBU R128, ATSC A/85, ABA OP-48, ARIB TR-B32, etc...) are never more than a decibel different from each other, and they all use exactly the same algorithm and weighting filters because they are all based on, and get updated, according to ITU-R BS.1770-x.

I fear that it is a well meaning attempt that will fail due to reality, and greed of advertisers...

You may be right... but I don't share your pessimism. There really is a lot of pressure behind the scenes all around the world to get the problem with loud adverts fixed. Ut will take time, but there is progress...

... as well as stupidity of garage bands thinking louder is better. I recall a post on one forum where some kid asked how to make his picture of the recording solid blue, meaning he wanted to compress everything so it was at 0dBFS everywhere.

Again, this is changing, but it will take time. Since ALL of the online streaming services are now loudness-normalised, heavily squished material inherently ends up sounding thin, feeble and completely crap. So sooner or later even the dopiest of garage bands will cotton on to the fact that only dynamics win... and the music becomes so much nicer and more involving!

It might be another decade yet for loudness-normalised streaming and broadcasting (if it survives that long) to be completely ubiquitous, but it ain't going away and peak-normalised material will become an historical anomaly! We will look back at the CD era and shudder with horror at the way we mangled music back then... :D
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 24840
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:53 am

Sam Spoons wrote:... the point of it is that his 'solid blue' track will be reduced in level so it sits at the average volume for the delivery medium instead of being the loudest track there.

Yep.

Using hyper-compression/limiting etc to maximise the average energy level will make the track sound louder than another track when played back on an unmoderated system -- like a domestic CD player or in a club etc.

However, when played back on a loudness normalised system -- like Spotify, YouTube, broadcast TV/Radio, etc etc... it just becomes a dreary, relentless dull, weedy slab of sound.

So maximising the peak level with hyper-compression/limiting becomes completely counter-productive in a loudness-normalised world... and that's where we are living. There are still a few areas where peak-normalisation lives on at the moment, but their days are numbered...

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 24840
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Uncle Freddie » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:55 pm

Thank you everyone. I agree that the loudness war still needs to be fought.

However I need to say that in my example, I want to turn this piece of music DOWN, not up.

The file is peaking at -0.1 dBFS (not dBTP), and I wanted a tool where I could batch-modify it to re-normalize it to -1.0 dBTP (not dBFS; I presume when all is said and done, the dBFS peak would end up falling somewhere even lower than -1)

Am I asking for a tool that cannot exist mathematically? If you examine the amplitudes of the individual samples in a digital file, and there are 2 samples back to back at X dBFS, the true peak is calculated between them using some algorithm, correct?


Thanks,
Fred
Uncle Freddie
Poster
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:00 am
Location: Detroit, USA

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:54 pm

Uncle Freddie wrote:Am I asking for a tool that cannot exist mathematically?

No, it's perfectly do-able. it's just that I don't think anyone has required that particular feature.

True-Peak is only measured in loudness-normalisation systems, and those are focused on matching loudness values, not true peak values. The true-peak measure is only a protective one, and if the value is exceeded the usual solution is to limit the audio at the required peak level. If the audio was turned down to comply with a maximum true-peak level it would reduce the integrated Loudness level, which would be counter-productive...

However, there is a program that ~might~ do what you need and that's Nugen Audio's LM-Correct, since you can tell that to normalise files according to different R128 parameters. But I don't know if it will turn the audio down to match a true-peak level as you want, or just apply a limiter to make the track conform to a given True-peak level. LM-Correct can work either in real-time as a plugin or standalone processor, or faster than real-time on off-line files. The manual is here:

https://nugenaudio.com/files/manuals/LMCorrect2%20Manual.pdf

If you examine the amplitudes of the individual samples in a digital file, and there are 2 samples back to back at X dBFS, the true peak is calculated between them using some algorithm, correct?

It calculates the original waveform between the samples from the existing samples, and works out the true peak value from that.

You can do the same thing manually simply by up-sampling your source file by at least 4x (ideally 8x), and then using the normalise function of your DAW to set the peak level to -1dBFS... Finally, down-sample the resulting file back to the original sample rate.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 24840
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:18 pm

Sam Spoons wrote:If I'm understanding the several interesting discussions/explanations of 'Loudness Normalisation' recently, the point of it is that his 'solid blue' track will be reduced in level so it sits at the average volume for the delivery medium instead of being the loudest track there.

True. But this was pre LUFS and LKFS was invented.

Now his track will not be the loudest but merely terrible sounding when played back from a distribution channel that requires normalisation.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:25 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
hobbyist wrote:...the real item of interest is which standard are you going to use, or may be required to use.

If you're mixing form a broadcaster the required standard will be set out in the contract and/or delivery documentation. But in reality all of the different broadcast Loudness standards (EBU R128, ATSC A/85, ABA OP-48, ARIB TR-B32, etc...) are never more than a decibel different from each other, and they all use exactly the same algorithm and weighting filters because they are all based on, and get updated, according to ITU-R BS.1770-x.

I fear that it is a well meaning attempt that will fail due to reality, and greed of advertisers...

You may be right... but I don't share your pessimism. There really is a lot of pressure behind the scenes all around the world to get the problem with loud adverts fixed. Ut will take time, but there is progress...

You are still a young whipperschnapper:)
I am very old and getting more pessimistic by the day.

... as well as stupidity of garage bands thinking louder is better. I recall a post on one forum where some kid asked how to make his picture of the recording solid blue, meaning he wanted to compress everything so it was at 0dBFS everywhere.

Again, this is changing, but it will take time. Since ALL of the online streaming services are now loudness-normalised, heavily squished material inherently ends up sounding thin, feeble and completely crap. So sooner or later even the dopiest of garage bands will cotton on to the fact that only dynamics win... and the music becomes so much nicer and more involving!

There is some change. Not enough to solve my problem as a listener.

I wish my stereo had a built in normaliser which let me set the parameters and automatically fixed every program to be exactly to my taste so I didn't have to keep hunting for the remote and changing the volume manually.



It might be another decade yet for loudness-normalised streaming and broadcasting (if it survives that long) to be completely ubiquitous, but it ain't going away and peak-normalised material will become an historical anomaly! We will look back at the CD era and shudder with horror at the way we mangled music back then... :D
[/quote]

If only. I doubt that we will ever really have it unless some one world government dictated that it happen.

We still have AM radio. FM did not kill it. TV did not kill radio. Doubt that on demand holograms will kill TV either.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:44 pm

hobbyist wrote:We still have AM radio. FM did not kill it.

True... but I haven't listened to AM Radio for probably 20 years or more. I can't even remember the last time I even tuned a radio preset for an AM channel... ;-)

Doubt that on demand holograms will kill TV either.

No, but 5H (or 6G) data networks might well within a decade!

There is a very noticeable move away from people viewing traditional broadcast TV, and into online and streamed services... and you can get an awful lot of mobile data channels into the air-bands currently reserved for broadcast TV. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the traditional Band IV/V free-to-air broadcast networks are killed off within a decade or two. Satellite broadcasting might survive for a bit, but that two could easily convert to data streaming services...

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 24840
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:57 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
hobbyist wrote:We still have AM radio. FM did not kill it.

True... but I haven't listened to AM Radio for probably 20 years or more. I can't even remember the last time I even tuned a radio preset for an AM channel... ;-)

Doubt that on demand holograms will kill TV either.

No, but 5H (or 6G) data networks might well within a decade!

There is a very noticeable move away from people viewing traditional broadcast TV, and into online and streamed services... and you can get an awful lot of mobile data channels into the air-bands currently reserved for broadcast TV. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the traditional Band IV/V free-to-air broadcast networks are killed off within a decade or two. Satellite broadcasting might survive for a bit, but that two could easily convert to data streaming services...

H

AM is certainly more limited, but in small towns it may be the only radio at all. When the town is small enough then they have nothing local and may or may not get a distant station.

Broadcast TV will be hurting for sure. Streaming and cable did a number on that already. As to cell phones a lot of us refuse to watch on such a small device. So the TV will be around even if not the broadcast method.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby Sam Spoons » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:08 pm

I assume you are not in the UK (or at leas far from population centres)? IME FM can be slightly dodgy at the edges of North Wales but is mostly pretty solid, DAB less so but surprisingly robust and mobile internet (and the mobile phone network generally) is also pretty usable now when it was very poor only a few years ago. It's not completely universal but it's all pretty reliable.
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Jedi Poster
Posts: 10359
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Manchester UK
Finally taking this recording lark seriously (and recording my Gypsy Jazz CD)........

Re: Are there utilities to normalize to dBTP (not dBFS) ?

Postby hobbyist » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:16 pm

Sam Spoons wrote:I assume you are not in the UK (or at leas far from population centres)? IME FM can be slightly dodgy at the edges of North Wales but is mostly pretty solid, DAB less so but surprisingly robust and mobile internet (and the mobile phone network generally) is also pretty usable now when it was very poor only a few years ago. It's not completely universal but it's all pretty reliable.

I am in the upstart colonies across the big pond.

And we have a lot of open space with scattered spots of groups of people living together.

Some towns are: gone, small, mid sized, or large, and we have cities that are small , middling, large, and humongous.
hobbyist
Regular
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:52 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users