Search results

I think that we could consider also WHO-ITU H.870 standard: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/safe-listening-levels-and-headphone-voltage-power-requirements.37860/page-4#post-1343298

What is Time 2?

Just to note: WHO ITU H.870 define for 80 dB(A) SPL (or 1.6 Pa2h) max 40 hours x Week

The last version of the complete ITU-T H.870 is available at: https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-H.870-202203-I!!PDF-E&type=items

I want to also add a reference to two WHO pdfs: https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1176080/retrieve https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1176084/retrieve

On a mobile phone could be hard to retrieve specs. On a desktop setup it could be easier to add a software monitor and measure the *-weigthed RMS of your tracks after eq attenuation, LUFS normalization etc.. So you can just put 0 to the target LUFS and 0 to the attenuation and just use the...

Something like https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2022/05/comparison-of-the-rms-energy-and-the-amplitude-envelope/

Yes this is marginal.. at the end we could also totally ignore all the LUFS and EQ attenuation if we could have a software monitor for the A-weighted RMS as we cannot statically pre-measure tracks/videos on streaming services. But it is not easy to find one that integrates on long time interval.

That is the same to measure RMS at a specific LUFS value. But in the case the LUFS is lower then the target LUFS it will be amplified. So we need care also when the track is lower then the target LUFS value as we will have a gain with the normalization and something to subtract to the attenuation.

I have in both cases always -15dB total RMS in "Modern Pop/Rock" cell. So do you mean that this value e.g. -15db is supposed to be at a specific LUFS value filled in same section? It is why we need to calc the difference between Loudness Target and LUFS of the unormalized track at e.g. -15dB?

I still don't understand something from the spreadsheet. E.g. I've attached a software monitor, without loudness normalization, and I have on a track with an integrated at -13 LUFS. I don't understand why with a target of -14 LUFS (loud normalization on) the the spreadsheet suggest to pull...

The only not so usable point is that if we connect a software meter with a streaming service it is hard to know the unormalized LUFS for each palying track as we will see the LUFS stats in the meter already normalized. Playing the track twice is quite annoying (unormalized and then normalized).

Ok so we suppose that Rock/POP type tracks have a expected pre-normalizalizzation at -8 LUFS (on avg). Then we just transform the LUFS difference with the target as a DB attenuation that we need to recover with the "volume knob".

Ok but why in the Total attenuation dB we are using Loudness Target - Loudness Track?

Is this expressed by the LUFS cell in the music parameters?

Don't we care only that we have a target of -10 LUFS?

Yes I understand this, what I meant is that how this is going to interact with the main LUFS target in the spreadsheet. E.g. I measure an already LUFS normalized track (or track in the album context) with streaming services.

@xnor What are the LUFS values in the Music paramter box in the spreadsheet?

I don't think that we have this kind of effect on Spotify:

I think that some services, like Spotify, are going to apply both positive and negative gain compensation. You can also chose the normalization level (-11, -14, -19 LUFS): https://artists.spotify.com/help/article/loudness-normalization