JediJoker
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
TT/MAAT DRMeter readings are pretty useless for more than two channels.DR14 for the Atmos mix.
TT/MAAT DRMeter readings are pretty useless for more than two channels.DR14 for the Atmos mix.
?TT/MAAT
The old version and the new version. All programs that calculate DR values use one or the other of these algorithms. Neither were created to handle more than two channels with any degree of comparability. In fact, the first party tools only work with mono and stereo.
I haven't heard this. I have seen it used for a long time on 5.1 files for comparing one 5.1 file to another. I know @HomerJAU uses the readings in his multichannel software.The old version and the new version. All programs that calculate DR values use one or the other of these algorithms. Neither were created to handle more than two channels with any degree of comparability. In fact, the first party tools only work with mono and stereo.
foobar2000's implementation of the TT Meter allows for more than two channels, but that doesn't mean it gives useful readings beyond stereo. MMH's implementation attempts to mitigate the incompatibility using noise gates (I assume) for any additional channels, but it's still not a use of the algorithm intended by the developer. All mono and stereo DR readings are comparable to one another; readings for other channel configurations are not.I haven't heard this. I have seen it used for a long time on 5.1 files for comparing one 5.1 file to another. I know @HomerJAU uses the readings in his multichannel software.
Comparing the same amount of channels vs another mix with the same number of channels would seem useful but who knows. I use it in addition to waveforms.foobar2000's implementation of the TT Meter allows for more than two channels, but that doesn't mean it gives useful readings beyond stereo. MMH's implementation attempts to mitigate the incompatibility using noise gates (I assume) for any additional channels, but it's still not a use of the algorithm intended by the developer. All mono and stereo DR readings are comparable to one another; readings for other channel configurations are not.
The biggest issue that throws off readings is channels with little information, like LFE. Next is the issue of louder L and R versus other channels, which get averaged out to read higher than the subjective listening experience, as the less dynamic front channels will dominate perception of DR. Unless and until a proper algorithm is developed for multichannel, it's best to avoid DR ratings beyond stereo. They just muddy the waters as far as true loudness is concerned.Comparing the same amount of channels vs another mix with the same number of channels would seem useful but who knows. I use it in addition to waveforms.
I just did a quick test by moving the sub and center channels to the front left and right slots of a 5.1 file and it didn't change the DR reading. It isn't just reading the left and right channels at least.The biggest issue that throws off readings is channels with little information, like LFE. Next is the issue of louder L and R versus other channels, which get averaged out to read higher than the subjective listening experience, as the less dynamic front channels will dominate perception of DR. Unless and until a proper algorithm is developed for multichannel, it's best to avoid DR ratings beyond stereo. They just muddy the waters as far as true loudness is concerned.
That's exactly the problem: it is agnostic of which channels are which. All are treated equally, whereas to match our hearing, R and L should be weighted higher.I just did a quick test by moving the sub and center channels to the front left and right slots of a 5.1 file and it didn't change the DR reading. It isn't just reading the left and right channels at least.
The DR meter works fine for Quad in a 4.0 container. I used to always convert my 5.1 files to 4.0 for compatibility with my 4.0 sound cards.This problem has been around ever since the DR meter was made. It has never ever been reliable with Mch. More unreliable with Quad because of it being in 5.0 or 5.1 containers and having at least 1 or 2 totally empty channels which when averaged distort the accuracy.
No, it doesn't. The algorithm was only designed for two channels. Just because third parties have made it usable on more than two channels doesn't mean the readings it gives are useful or comparable.The DR meter works fine for Quad in a 4.0 container.
Totally disagree. Quad is just stereo x 2, no reason for it not to work. Adding lfe might skew readings lower, but for four full bandwidth channels what's the problem?No, it doesn't. The algorithm was only designed for two channels. Just because third parties have made it usable on more than two channels doesn't mean the readings it gives are useful or comparable.
Try *deleting* the channels -- typically C and LFE -- that typically have far less/far lower -- or zero -- content.I just did a quick test by moving the sub and center channels to the front left and right slots of a 5.1 file and it didn't change the DR reading. It isn't just reading the left and right channels at least.
It's a perceptual algorithm. Perception of dynamic range changes when adding surround channels. The algorithm treats all channels equally, which gives inaccurate DR measurements.Totally disagree. Quad is just stereo x 2, no reason for it not to work. Adding lfe might skew readings lower, but for four full bandwidth channels what's the problem?
My guess is only Friedemann Tischmeyer knows the full details. Whatever he coded, though, it's quite useful for stereo (and mono). In concert with EBU R128 loudness measurements, DR provides a great picture of how dynamic a release is.Does anyone really know the full details of how TT's and later, MAAT's DR meters work?
They always should be!And what happens when the rear 2 channels just aren't as full of content as the front 2?
I was thinking a binaural render would make the most sense, as it would take psychoacoustics into account. It would also work for any number of discrete channels/objects. Render your surround/immersive to binaural, run it through the DR meter, and there's your accurate and comparable measurement.Couldn't you just export the front & rear stereo pairs, then run the DR on them both, which should work as they'd be 2x separate stereo files?
Then list the front & rear DR values. Which might be more useful than a single DR value since it would supply you the front vs rear content too?
Some enterprising programmer could probably wrap that all into a script
Enter your email address to join: