MAAT DR Meter - copy protection is terrible

[softska]

I believe codemeter is used by propellerhead without problems...

Yep! It has always been fairly reliable for me. Even for authorizing a computer to use the software as opposed to using the dongle. If you've been with Reason for a while though you undoubtedly have a dongle.

I remember dealing with SSL Duende when they were still on codemeter was also PITA sadly. Don't know any other dev implemented the same way Prop did (cloud/computer/dongle any1 of them and no crash when it lose connection to server/dongle)

[seismic1]

I never had any problems with with the Codemeter install here. I've also been using it at work for non-audio licensing for years (on Linux)

[mutantdog]

Thanks Compy, what a great overview of the subject.

I do occasionally use the DR meter in Foobar2000 but more as a curiosity than anything else. All the technical stuff aside, there's just something about the Pleasurize Music Foundation that seems kinda scammy to me.

[Compyfox]

Nah, it's actually people like me and others who actually do care about the subject that should thank you for posts like these.

...so Thanks

Thanks Compy, what a great overview of the subject.

You're welcome

Thanks Compy for all that interesting info! I always wondered how bx_meter tied into the TT meter.

I was surprised myself of the release back in the day, so I asked them as former TT-DR Meter User (that was ultimately locked out of updates until I paid "the campaign"). I think they even commented on it on either GS or KVR. Needless to say, I "crossgraded". Now you can pick up the plugin every so often for a couple of bucks.

My go-to- meter now is Nugen Mastercheck. But I wish...

Reach out via the support. Nugen Audio is a caring company and they do listen to constructive feedback.

I do occasionally use the DR meter in Foobar2000 but more as a curiosity than anything else. All the technical stuff aside, there's just something about the Pleasurize Music Foundation that seems kinda scammy to me.

I wouldn't say it's "scammy". I can however say that they're chasing an old, and IMO now outdated, and always heavily flawed concept (density of program material).


The K-System v1 was a good attempt to already pull down the perceived loudness. It was a bit hard to wrap your head around with the initial setup, but once you understood the concept, it actually took the wind out of the sails in terms of pushed "Peak Limiting" (what magazines still do: "make things loud and powerful" - no you don't! That's not what Mastering is about!).

The ITU-R BS.1770-x specs (or it's derivations/complementaries like EBU R-128 and ATSC A/85) always had a focus of "pulling down the loudness", making "Peak Limiting" effectively completely obsolete. This in turn had the positive side effect, that you material isn't squashed to smithereens anymore (equal loudness for everyone, at a low enough level to not abuse "peak limiting"), automatically "raising" the DR value (or crest factor, or again...whatever you want to call it depending on the ballistics you're using).

Theoretically at least - you can still squash your material to bits, if you want to. But you'll miss out of the effect of healthy transients.



Technically, you can find out the "range value" yourself if you take the maximum digital signal strength and the maximum average signal strenght (e.g. SLk, MLk, RMS unweighted), then do the math:

Examples:

Code: Select all

dBTP max = -1,2dBTP
avg signal max = -11,8LUFS SLk

Highest value - lowest value = Range
avg signal strength - dBTP max (algebraic sign ignored for both) = Range (numeric)

(-)11,8LUFS - (-)1,2dBTP = +10,6 PLR


dBTP max = -0,7dBTP
avg signal max = -7,8dB RMS max

Highest value - lowest value = Range
avg signal strength - dBTP max (algebraic sign ignored for both) = Range (numeric)

(-)7,8dB RMS - (-)0,7dB dBTP = DR 7,1

Technically, the DR Offline meter goes further by analyzing the whole stream, then taking n-amount of measurement points from the "stream" (start to finish), and then creates an "average value". Much like ILk for ITU-R BS.1770-x (etc).

That's about. No secret sauce or anything.



It is just another visual indication, a bonus information. In the grand scheme of things, it has no bigger merit. And it honestly never had. It was a nice attempt to battle the loudness war. But each genre apparently had it's own set of "ideal ranges", making everything unnecessarily confusing IMO. And then there is still the factor "what loudness should you not exceed?!".

ITU-R BS.1770-x and co simplified things drastically, it cut away room for errors and "rule of thumb"/"gut instict" interpretation. If there are no definite rules, bend them - which is a viscous cycle that never ends (Loudness War). But if there is just one important rule...

Why else do you think that -23LUFS (broadcast) and -16LUFS (for music/podcasts/radio player, etc - covers streaming, regular releases on various mediums) are currently considered the two main go-to values these days? And it's proven at this point, that this works just as well for various kind of music genres.



This is all I can give you on the way. Ultimately it's up to you if you need this type of meter.

[electro]

You must support the developers that do not do this to their customers. Developers like U-he, TAL, Hornet, DMG, Cytomic, Voxengo, GG-Audio etc.

[Compyfox]

Er... what are they doing, other than re-releasing a plugin and using Codemeter/Wibu this time around?

Am I missing something?

[Tischmeyer]

Hi guys, I think we can all agree that copy protection in general is a big pita! This is true for users and for software manufacturers equally. But we unfortunately do NOT live in a perfect world so that copy protection is a requirement for any software company to have a fair chance to survive sustainable and give the staff a reliable reward/income.
I´d like to share our philosophy and by this give you a glance on the other side of the coin as stuff is not always as simple as it looks like.

We at MAAT are really concerned about a great user experience which includes activation of the copy protection. We have invested quite some time to make the online activation as easy and intuitive as it can be. In some (fortunately rare) cases some users with specific configurations can still run into trouble and we do all possible to help and mitigate the trouble so that the longer we are in business the less trouble appears. Admittedly the offline registration is still a pita and we have already a plan to solve it. But this takes time and time is money which is currently put into product development but will be done after the next product release.

Here some general thoughts from the manufacturer prospective why we chose WiBu: When one starts a software company copy protection is one of the biggest and most painful topics which unfortunately lasts for ever. We needed to look for a secure copy protection with future flexibility (ready to offer lease, rent, installment, pay per use) and integrates well into an ecommmerce environment and is somehow affordable. Having a native solution would simple require a 6 figure initial development investment to get to 20% of the security of WiBu and possible 40% of the flexibility. This is simply impossible for a startup and would burn a six figure amount of cash each year. On the other hand we have license agreements with Algorithmix (which will manifest into products soon) so that we
A) need to make sure to have something safe and
B) protect the investment of our customers as well.
We will sell our more advanced and expensive tools with a price guaranty as we don´t want to bother full price customers with crazy 80% Off Black Friday stuff because this is a punch into the face of full price customers. The state of the art mastering EQ (to come first half 2018) is based on roughly 10 years of research and optimization with the best ears on the market involved and consists of more than 60,000 lines of code. We want to make sure that users who buy such tools can be sure that other users don´t get hold of a crack for free so that the software investment will be a long lasting investment empowering our customer to create better results. We simply can´t play around with security as we owe this to our team, our licensors, and foremost our customers. We simply go down this road to make the Algorithmix tools survive and even get better and to offer a range of new highly advanced tools for you guys and we promise to do all in our power to make the copy protection a simple task.
For the latter we just ask for a bit of patience and support if one runs into unexpected trouble. By the way: Copy protection makes 99% or the support and quite a chunk of our programming manpower... so it´s no fun for either side but as long as we don´t live in a perfect world it´s just a requirement to do what we do. Hope you guys will enjoy our existing and upcoming tools.
Best, Friedemann

[Tischmeyer]

please delete

[Tischmeyer]

Er... what are they doing, other than re-releasing a plugin and using Codemeter/Wibu this time around?

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something
A) We plan to further develop the DRMeter which will manifest into the release of the DRMeter MkII pretty soon and B) we will release a lot of exciting new tools plus reshaped Algorithmix tools in the future.
To do so an audio software company needs to build a repository with a lot of stuff being integrated like code signing, copy protection, multiple format support, etc... It was simply a requirement to redo the TT Dynamic Range Meter in order to be able to further develop it from our repository. It was the first few steps of many steps to come and as all that stuff costs a lot of money we simply re-released the DRMeter make it available for all platforms and to be at least able to pay a fraction of the development expenses for the DRMeter MkII through sales.
Starting MAAT was the consequence out of many motivations:
1. In order to bring the Pleasurize Music Foundation to a next level by re-booting the whole stuff we needed a reliable developer. As we haven´t found a third party developer we needed to found our own one.
2. In order to let the beloved and still bench mark tools of Algorithmix survive we needed to start a software company to do it because I haven´t been able to find anything which comes close.
3. In order to create new tools based on my own user experience combined with the dsp genius of Dr. Christoph Musialik, founding MAAT was the way to do it.
I am aware that the PMF site is super out dated and requires some intense love. So MAAT is simply an inherent part of the big picture delivering the prerequisite to re-start PMF in conjunction with technical solutions.
So please have some patience so that we can work down a long list of to do´s to contribute to a better sounding world. I am certain that you will appreciate the stuff to come.
Best,
Friedemann

[OMas@MAAT]

Fun fact (from the history I know):
the first version of "TT-Dynamic Range Meter" was a collaboration with Brainworx, based upon an unweighted RMS meter (IIRC, Dorrough patent)

Hey Compyfox,
A few facts to offer…The original TT Dynamic Range Meter, for Windows, was conceived of by Friedemann Tischmeyer (The 1st T in TT or Tischmeyer Technology) as a way of objectively measuring and comparing the dynamic density of recordings. The original software was developed in conjunction with Algorithmix, not Brainworx. Later, Friedemann asked Brainworx to create a macOS version. BTW, Brainworx was not allowed to not release any information, including product, related to that code.

June 2017 - MAAT Inc surfaces with a re-re-release of DR Meter

We (MAAT), formed in October of 2016, went public in May of 2017, and released both 2BusControl and DRMeter in June.

(again, RMS unweighted)

Not sure why you mentioned RMS, weighted or otherwise, but it has literally nothing to do with DR. For clarification, DRMeter does include RMS alongside DR estimation.

and DR Offline (now seemingly unlocked to >44/16)

BTW, DRMeter support up to 8x sample rates for DAWs that do. DROffline too, but it’s a stand-alone app.

but it needs Wibu/Codemeter and there is no public available manual either

Just ask:
user manual for DRMeter — http://bit.ly/2ClZXau
also, user manual for DROffline — http://bit.ly/2C8OuhB

But just like with the PRSR Meter (Dynameter), the advertising is written in such a form, to give a completely different impression…

If there’s anything misleading or incorrect about our web site, please let me know and I’ll correct it. PLR and/or crest factor are not R128-mandated metrics, and so are not standardized. As a result, one manufacturer’s PLR meter can and will yield different values than others. “How is that possible?!” you may ask…Well, to be brief; window size and time constants, along with other factors such as internal (measurement/math) precision and if weighting and/or gating is applied.

Not only that, measuring DR or PLR or PSR (or however you want to call it!) is highly "program material dependent". Meaning, the "denser" your mix (more compressed, more peak limited), the lower the value. Going by the value alone (e.g. DR-8 for "pop music") does not fight the loudness war at all. Iit just gives you an indication if your material is "dynamic" enough. In fact, I pointed this out in 2009 already, and I also critisized that DR-8 for one pop production might be fine, while it's not for another.

DR is “akin” to PLR, but is not PLR or crest factor. It was designed to, as previously mentioned, gauge the dynamic density of pop music. Not Classical, not Cool Jazz, not Ambient; Pop Music because that’s where the most egregious uses of dynamic range reduction and limiting occurs. [A show of hands for all those who (used to) use a Finalizer.]

As with any other piece of gear or software, it helps to know how to use it and why you should or shouldn’t apply it. Knowing how to use a pair of scissors doesn’t make one a barber. Both the DRMeter and DROffline user manuals provide not only background information, but details on operation and best practices.

Don't let the marketing fool you!

I’m an electrical engineer, audio engineer, author/educator and MAAT CMO. I wrote our web site and user manuals as I have always done; to inform, not mislead. We don’t need to fool anyone. Our products stand, quite well, on their own. There are a lot of “alternative facts” on the web and elsewhere. We at MAAT stick to actual facts. Please read our stuff literally and you’ll find that, though it may not reinforce any hidden biases, it will supply factual data.

Sorry for the long rant, but I think this was important to point out, to know off-hand what you're getting into with this plugin revival. You have to decide for yourself if you want to chase an old "proposal", or stick with modern day tools and reference level recommendations.

Agreed. That said, DR is as relevant today as it was back in the day. The Getting Your Geek On section of the DROffline user manual has a bunch of info on that, as does most sections of the DRMeter UM.

Personally, I will keep an eye on MAAT DR Meter (now that mk2 is officially announced). But if it's reliant on Wibu/Codemeter, I might never be able to even try it as I'm not utilizing Wibu/Codemeter keys in my work environment. There are just not enough tools on the market for me to justify this expense.

Oy! As with PACE (iLok), Wibu doesn’t require hardware dongles, you can use file-based/host-based licenses. You can also “park” licenses in the cloud, and move them between hosts and/or dongles.

[Compyfox]

Interesting to see two founders of MAAT in this thread now.

Also... SHOP TALK!

Here some general thoughts from the manufacturer prospective why we chose WiBu: When one starts a software company copy protection is one of the biggest and most painful topics which unfortunately lasts for ever. We needed to look for a secure copy protection with future flexibility (ready to offer lease, rent, installment, pay per use) and integrates well into an ecommmerce environment and is somehow affordable. Having a native solution would simple require a 6 figure initial development investment to get to 20% of the security of WiBu and possible 40% of the flexibility. This is simply impossible for a startup and would burn a six figure amount of cash each year. On the other hand we have license agreements with Algorithmix (which will manifest into products soon) so that we
A) need to make sure to have something safe and
B) protect the investment of our customers as well.

I don't remember anymore what Algorhithmix used as CP, but according to KVR Audio's database, that was Syncrosoft Elicenser. Then again, that system (at least not to my knowledge) does not offer subscription models (pay-per-use, lease/rent, etc). Although, AXIS Plugins was using the Elicenser as well to my knowledge, and this plugin offering was "subscription based"? Confusing...

Either way - Ilok2+ (EDEN3 and up) would have been more widespread as well (still fairly secure too), so I really don't get the Wibu/Codemeter route (not that common in the audio realm, last tool I remember using it, was VB-Audio). Well, at least it's not yet another own CP USB key system just for one tool

We will sell our more advanced and expensive tools with a price guaranty as we don´t want to bother full price customers with crazy 80% Off Black Friday stuff because this is a punch into the face of full price customers. ... We simply go down this road to make the Algorithmix tools survive and even get better and to offer a range of new highly advanced tools for you guys and we promise to do all in our power to make the copy protection a simple task.

Again, what I can read from Algorithmix, is that the software used/uses Syncrosoft Elicenser. The only thing that really, really scared me off from using the plugins, was the price.

I mean, okay... K-Stereo is a port from the hardware, and it dropped considerably in price over the years (I still remember it costing 1k EUR). But there is DrMS and even freeware alternatives. And why does a Linear Phase EQ have to cost 1-grand (plus VAT!, current listed price on the page), if I can simply walk over to the competition and get anything between 32, to 64 to near unlimited bands, bonus various filter types and behavior, linear phase - all for for a fraction of the price?


The market has changed - in a good way.

So I really hope that the updated versions of Algorithmix will be affordable, future proof and not require me to invest every year. I mean... let's be honest here, Friedemann. Not every one of us AE's is getting paid 500+EUR per job (3 hour mastering), and have like 10 mastering jobs/month. So an expense like this would be nothing more than mere peanuts.

[A) We plan to further develop the DRMeter which will manifest into the release of the DRMeter MkII pretty soon and B) we will release a lot of exciting new tools plus reshaped Algorithmix tools in the future.

I am aware of that.

To do so an audio software company needs to build a repository with a lot of stuff being integrated like code signing, copy protection, multiple format support, etc... It was simply a requirement to redo the TT Dynamic Range Meter in order to be able to further develop it from our repository. It was the first few steps of many steps to come and as all that stuff costs a lot of money we simply re-released the DRMeter make it available for all platforms and to be at least able to pay a fraction of the development expenses for the DRMeter MkII through sales.

So the re-re-release of DRMeter was/is basically a test run... to see if the new code is compatible with the environments of the users.


Then again - why wasn't I informed of a "crossgrade offer" (with a fair deal no less)? I mean, not that I use the DR Meter exclusively these days (as mentioned before, for me it's "added/bonus information" and I outgrew it with the K-System v1, my own K-System like concept based ITU-R BS.1770-x metering, and ITU-R BS.1770-x metering itself). In fact, quite the contrary.

But still... I really felt being pushed away back in the days. First we interested users all had access to TT-DR Meter for free (as mentioned, "education ware"). Then I had to sign up to the campaign page (still getting it for free), then I was asked to "Invest", else no access to updates anymore. After that, years of radio silence, an "unsanctioned release" (read OMas's comment below) via brainworx, and then out of nowhere "here we are, please invest again". Even though 5USD of the new purchase will be forwarded to the PMF "campaign" to spread awareness (similar to what fellow engineer Ian Shepherd is doing)...

Sorry, but this just doesn't feel right IMO.

2. In order to let the beloved and still bench mark tools of Algorithmix survive we needed to start a software company to do it because I haven´t been able to find anything which comes close.

Well, I have. Though maybe my personal standards are not as high.
Then again, I can't invest 1k/month for tools either.

I am aware that the PMF site is super out dated and requires some intense love. So MAAT is simply an inherent part of the big picture delivering the prerequisite to re-start PMF in conjunction with technical solutions.
So please have some patience so that we can work down a long list of to do´s to contribute to a better sounding world. I am certain that you will appreciate the stuff to come.

Not to be overly critical, but after the rise of ITU-R BS.1770-x (and all it's derivations), I personally think that DRMeter is just not relevant anymore.

The (ITU-R) meter pretty much fixed all flaws with realtime RMS metering (prefilter and ballistics adjustments, or simplified: implementation of a weighting filter). Not to mention that concepts like "Mastered for iTunes" and "Loudness Normalization for Streaming Services" made Peak Limiting pretty much obsolete.

Heck, that was even a topic at AES142/Berlin's main panel (Loudenss War). So why re-introduce something that was confusing and (dare I even say it) flawed to begin with? Just to create a mkII version, which (from my basic understanding so far) will be an ITU-R BS.1770-x based meter, with the DRMeter built in "realtime" as additional information drop?


We audio engineers all have the same goal - create well balanced mixes, and get rid of over-compressed releases. But why does everyone have to create their own "standards", their "defacto only solution" to get there? I've been criticizing this for years on various communities at this point.

A few facts to offer…The original TT Dynamic Range Meter, for Windows, was conceived of by Friedemann Tischmeyer (The 1st T in TT or Tischmeyer Technology) as a way of objectively measuring and comparing the dynamic density of recordings. The original software was developed in conjunction with Algorithmix, not Brainworx. Later, Friedemann asked Brainworx to create a macOS version. BTW, Brainworx was not allowed to not release any information, including product, related to that code.

So brainworx basically broke a license agreement? Well, as user, this is none of my business.

But I have to hand it to them - they upgraded "their" DR-Meter to combine the K-System (Dorrough patent for RMS measurements) and DR realtime metering pretty much perfect. They even offered k-weighting on top (though granted, with 600ms as "time window" and not 400ms as ITU-R BS.1770-x etc use for MLk).

So while one company left the users hanging, or rather required continuous investments, another company was like "let's add some logical upgrades and re-release the plugin for everyone without jumping hoops".

(again, RMS unweighted)

Not sure why you mentioned RMS, weighted or otherwise, but it has literally nothing to do with DR. For clarification, DRMeter does include RMS alongside DR estimation.

For clarification:

The DR-Meter is basically built upon an realtime RMS meter. If you're using the same specs as the Dorrough patent, then the "time window" for realtime measurement is 600ms. The ballistics are not mentioned in your manuals, but let's assume that this is the case. You're also using the AES-17 compensation (+3dB so that a sine reads equal values for max and avg signal strength).

The "realtime" DR value is then calculated/declared (to my understanding, even with the more recent manual) from the maximum average signal strength, ranging to the maximum signal strength value. This is just an "estimation", a visual representation. Accuracy is only possible with the offline tool.

According to the manual, the "DROffline" tool analyzes the whole program stream, divides it into 10k equal chunks, writes (internally) a statistics sheet of the max RMS value and the max dBTP value for each chunk, then discards 90% of that and only focuses on the top 10% of max average and max signal peak values. From those 10% of "range values", there will then be an average value calculated, ultimately resolving in the "official DR value".


UNLESS - and that is not mentioned in the manual, you changed something. Meaning: the RMS measurement uses a compensation (weighting filter), different time window, etc.

So my comment "RMS unweighted" is relevant. In fact, if more people on the web would make clear what "meter type" and "ballistics" they talk about (which can be as simple as dB RMS avg/Dorrough or LUFS MLk), this would end in way less confusing and sometimes useless debates.


EDIT (20min later):
Not only that, as mentioned in my last post, you can still do the math for a "DR value" in ITU-R meters yourself. The manual for the current DRMeter states that "the maximum values are important", which would indeed be discarded if they are calculated internally from ITU-R BS.1770-4 specs (due to the gating mechanism, as used for LRA and the histogram) from MLk or SLk to dBTP.

But you do can still create such a value yourself after you've ran the mix once through the analyzer - just by looking at MLk max value from the bargraph (or SLk Max, whatever you prefer) and dBTP max, you can find our your DR value easily (maximum value - minimum value = range).

Granted, not "the" DR value, but still a good overview of the "dynamic range" of your signal. No extra metering tool necessary. (IMHO and all that)

and DR Offline (now seemingly unlocked to >44/16)

BTW, DRMeter support up to 8x sample rates for DAWs that do. DROffline too, but it’s a stand-alone app.

So that changed from the old version, which was 4x OS IIRC.

And an improvement is that the DR value can now be read out for files other than 44kHz/16bit. This was the biggest issue I had with the old tool.

but it needs Wibu/Codemeter and there is no public available manual either

Just ask:

Then why not make it public to begin with?

If there’s anything misleading or incorrect about our web site, please let me know and I’ll correct it. PLR and/or crest factor are not R128-mandated metrics, and so are not standardized. As a result, one manufacturer’s PLR meter can and will yield different values than others. “How is that possible?!” you may ask…Well, to be brief; window size and time constants, along with other factors such as internal (measurement/math) precision and if weighting and/or gating is applied.

Personally, as somebody that has metering tools as "pet peeve" (or rather area of expertise), I am fully aware of that.

Although, the "value readouts" (for example on ToneBoosters' EBU Loudness) are basically (somewhat) realtime. Not to mention that you can switch between ITU-R BS.1770-0 (using no gating) and BS.1770-3/4 (using gating). I'm not a programmer, and only Jeroen Breebaart can really answer this - but I seem to remember from conversation that he uses the same time windows as the given specs for ILk.

I didn't dive super deep into MeterPlugs (Shepherd's) "Dynameter" yet. But I assume the numeric value (based upon SLk to dBTP) is similar to ILk calculation in terms of time windows as well.


But to sum it up - these PLR or PSR values are the same way non-standardized as the DR value isn't. It is still bonus information.

DR is “akin” to PLR, but is not PLR or crest factor. It was designed to, as previously mentioned, gauge the dynamic density of pop music. Not Classical, not Cool Jazz, not Ambient; Pop Music because that’s where the most egregious uses of dynamic range reduction and limiting occurs. [A show of hands for all those who (used to) use a Finalizer.]

The old PMF page gave a way different picture. The chart on page 23 of the recent DRMeter manual has been DRASTICALLY simplified even.

As with any other piece of gear or software, it helps to know how to use it and why you should or shouldn’t apply it. Knowing how to use a pair of scissors doesn’t make one a barber. Both the DRMeter and DROffline user manuals provide not only background information, but details on operation and best practices.

But it is still "bonus information".

In the age of Loudness Normalization (loudness being pulled down to -16LUFS or -14LUFS - see Spotify/iTunes/Tidal, etc), isn't that kind of a moot point now?

Don't let the marketing fool you!

I’m an electrical engineer, audio engineer, author/educator and MAAT CMO. I wrote our web site and user manuals as I have always done; to inform, not mislead. We don’t need to fool anyone. Our products stand, quite well, on their own. There are a lot of “alternative facts” on the web and elsewhere. We at MAAT stick to actual facts. Please read our stuff literally and you’ll find that, though it may not reinforce any hidden biases, it will supply factual data.

Woha woha, easy there!

I consider myself an "educator" in this realm as well (trained former IT tech, Audio Engineer, metering tools my "pet peeve"). And I look at several sides of the medal.

Fact is, a large portion of the webpage (and part of the manual) is written in such a way, that the DR Meter is presented as "the best thing that can happen to over-compressed music in years". Something that would have sit right with me around 2008 to 2010. But not anymore after I've dived into/adapted/experienced various types of "recommendations" and standards

I read beyond the marketing, I break things down to a bare minimum, try to make it as easily understandable as possible. And I can only state it again - I do consider DR Metering as a mere bonus information, it is technically flawed (since it's using RMS unweighted, the meter does respond stronger to low frequencies), the value can shift drastically depending on the density of the program material. And I've never, ever, seen a CD release on this side of the globe (Germany) with a DR-<nr> logo printed on it since the existence of this meter concept.

Agreed. That said, DR is as relevant today as it was back in the day. The Getting Your Geek On section of the DROffline user manual has a bunch of info on that, as does most sections of the DRMeter UM.

I've read it, three times actually. And while this finally(!) gives a better overview of what this meter is about, after looking at/experiencing modern day Loudness Normalization schemes/concepts, I still think it's outdated.


I also can't agree on the -0,5dBTP headroom. If you're having DR-8 to DR-6 electronic productions (effectively telling me, the avg signal strength must be about -8dB RMS to -6dB RMS), you are not(!) save from clipping post CODEC. Also, not every ISP Limiter works the same.


Yet my biggest concern is:

You can create a DR-8 production even at low "loudness" values (think K-12, or -14LUFS, etc) - if you want to. But your manual does merely scratch the surface as to what is considered a "healthy loudness". You give a DR-8 as "healthy" for electronic music (DR-7 goes into yellow), but this screams for "-7dB RMS to -0,5dBTP".

The loudness still has to be pulled down for Vinyl releases - so why not master in a lower avg signal strength already, therefore make it port easily to a myriad of mediums (tape, vinyl, streaming/broadcast, MP3/MP4, Pure Audio Blu ray, etc)? Of course engineers will be like "if it's still allowed, why go lower?!". This in turn is counter productive to battling the dreaded loudness war.

The notion is still "as long as it's not exceeding a certain DR value, related to a specific genre - if I even want to touch that realm, and as long as it's as loud mastered as possible, it's fine".

To this, the famous quote from "The Matrix" (1999) - "This is a sparring program, similar to the programmed reality of the Matrix. It has the same basic rules, rules like gravity. What you must learn is that these rules are no different that the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken. - Morpheus".

And history has shown us time and time again, that people will(!) break the rules to "remain on top of the game". Why? Because magazines tell us so, because video tutorials tell us so, because... such a manual tells us so!


We're back to getting stuck in a viscous cycle!

(sorry, I'm getting really on to the defensive with the topic "loud = better", my recent releases are all in the -14LUFS realm and one of my side projects, a mixing competition, even has this as a rule)

Oy! As with PACE (iLok), Wibu doesn’t require hardware dongles, you can use file-based/host-based licenses. You can also “park” licenses in the cloud, and move them between hosts and/or dongles.

I'm personally not a fan of "soft licenses" (as I'm not a general fan of C/R as CP) - I've just seen way too many issues on that behalf. But it's interesting to know that non-USB key solutions are present (in fact, written on the homepage as well).

So a look at mk2 might be possible. But only if the demo isn't crippled and I can renew it at a later state (think: 2 month break, and/or after a maintenance update).




Either way...
[/rant]

[pekbro]

To me the brainworx meter is much prettier.

[bobhva]

To me the brainworx meter is much prettier.

I decided to go with the Brainworx bx_meter instead. A very similar product with a painless and easier for me protection scheme.

To be clear my OP was not meant to bash or put down MAAT Digital in any way. I was just pointing out that I had a bad experience with the authorization process. The customer support was good about responding and resolved the situation to my satisfaction. I wish them the best of luck in the future!

[Compyfox]

Maybe change the topic to "CP is terrible, support is okay, tech talk inside (page 2)"... but only if you feel like

[Tischmeyer]

Interesting to see two founders of MAAT in this thread now.

Also... SHOP TALK!

Here some general thoughts from the manufacturer prospective why we chose WiBu: When one starts a software company copy protection is one of the biggest and most painful topics which unfortunately lasts for ever. We needed to look for a secure copy protection with future flexibility (ready to offer lease, rent, installment, pay per use) and integrates well into an ecommmerce environment and is somehow affordable. Having a native solution would simple require a 6 figure initial development investment to get to 20% of the security of WiBu and possible 40% of the flexibility. This is simply impossible for a startup and would burn a six figure amount of cash each year. On the other hand we have license agreements with Algorithmix (which will manifest into products soon) so that we
A) need to make sure to have something safe and
B) protect the investment of our customers as well.

I don't remember anymore what Algorhithmix used as CP, but according to KVR Audio's database, that was Syncrosoft Elicenser. Then again, that system (at least not to my knowledge) does not offer subscription models (pay-per-use, lease/rent, etc). Although, AXIS Plugins was using the Elicenser as well to my knowledge, and this plugin offering was "subscription based"? Confusing...

Either way - Ilok2+ (EDEN3 and up) would have been more widespread as well (still fairly secure too), so I really don't get the Wibu/Codemeter route (not that common in the audio realm, last tool I remember using it, was VB-Audio). Well, at least it's not yet another own CP USB key system just for one tool

We will sell our more advanced and expensive tools with a price guaranty as we don´t want to bother full price customers with crazy 80% Off Black Friday stuff because this is a punch into the face of full price customers. ... We simply go down this road to make the Algorithmix tools survive and even get better and to offer a range of new highly advanced tools for you guys and we promise to do all in our power to make the copy protection a simple task.

Again, what I can read from Algorithmix, is that the software used/uses Syncrosoft Elicenser. The only thing that really, really scared me off from using the plugins, was the price.

I mean, okay... K-Stereo is a port from the hardware, and it dropped considerably in price over the years (I still remember it costing 1k EUR). But there is DrMS and even freeware alternatives. And why does a Linear Phase EQ have to cost 1-grand (plus VAT!, current listed price on the page), if I can simply walk over to the competition and get anything between 32, to 64 to near unlimited bands, bonus various filter types and behavior, linear phase - all for for a fraction of the price?

Friedemann: Redoing the Algorithmix tools means taking the source code and porting it into a new repository so I don´t understand the eLicenser thing. Copy protections comes after plugin programming and eLicenser doesn´t offer the various models like subscription, pay per use, etc..., why we use CodeMeter for that purpose.
When you think any other free linear phase EQ is the same it is fine for you, we are OK with it too. Just go for it. I personally was looking for alternatives for the Algorithmix tools for years before closing the license agreement and starting with MAAT. And I have compared the PEQ orange and red with $10k hardware and all plugin-based LP EQs available I would consider as serious and it turned out that there are quite some big differences.
Markets offer always a broad range and when you go to buy a car you gonna find a lot of cars with 4 wheels and a steering wheel bringing you from A to B but there is a range from Fiat to Ferrari. Would you go to the Ferrari dealership and complain that it´s simply not fair to sell a Ferrari for the price of a small Fiat? The re-issues will be certainly a bit more affordable but they are designed to be advanced specialized tools for pro engineers making a living off mastering. So, nope, we won´t sell it for $249! But we will make it available to those who honor the quality and research on a pay-per-use basis. If everything on the software market was sold for $249 and 80% off on Black Friday there is no room for R&D and you would always find the same code under the hood taken from some libraries. But this tools are far beyond public library and super post graduate based on years of research. You even won´t find a word about those technologies on Google and even high scale founders of very well known and established brands reach out eager to get to know the secrets (we won´t reveal). BTW, most LP EQs are based on the same technology and both Algorithmix based LL EQs (red & orange) we will release are completely different in architecture what makes them so unique, transparent and beloved by many pro audio engineers.

The market has changed - in a good way.

Friedemann: See also above...
Yes and no. Tools became more affordable which is fine but the Black Friday Craziness is not only good for the users. You find tons of brands and tools and especially for beginners it is hard to figure out which tools are actually really good. The consequence is that more plugin companies have less budget for real R&D and high scale staff. This is the reason why the very few really good guys (like Daniel Weiss) are more focused towards CE industry rather than wasting bad paid time in the pro audio industry. We are happy to have Dr. Christoph Musialik as CTO in our team who is pretty much one of the very few high level dudes. This will allow us to work on some stuff which was not yet available in the Pro Audio industry on that level. And consequently this will somehow reflect in the price tag of some tools.
Be aware that producing a plugin became super easy today as long one takes the dsp stuff which is available on the road. But 100 different looking EQs do not make 100 different sounding EQs. So, no wonder that you can buy that stuff for $1.

So I really hope that the updated versions of Algorithmix will be affordable, future proof and not require me to invest every year. I mean... let's be honest here, Friedemann. Not every one of us AE's is getting paid 500+EUR per job (3 hour mastering), and have like 10 mastering jobs/month. So an expense like this would be nothing more than mere peanuts.

Friedemann: As said: We will take care to make our more advanced tools also available for those who do mastering once in a while but it´ll take some time as we follow a long-term plan (which is not going to be revealed here).

[A) We plan to further develop the DRMeter which will manifest into the release of the DRMeter MkII pretty soon and B) we will release a lot of exciting new tools plus reshaped Algorithmix tools in the future.

I am aware of that.

To do so an audio software company needs to build a repository with a lot of stuff being integrated like code signing, copy protection, multiple format support, etc... It was simply a requirement to redo the TT Dynamic Range Meter in order to be able to further develop it from our repository. It was the first few steps of many steps to come and as all that stuff costs a lot of money we simply re-released the DRMeter make it available for all platforms and to be at least able to pay a fraction of the development expenses for the DRMeter MkII through sales.

So the re-re-release of DRMeter was/is basically a test run... to see if the new code is compatible with the environments of the users.

Friedemann: I don´t get why you are so negative. The DRMeter is fully working tools which does it´s job for a very decent price tag. People loved the ballistics and we made sure that the new one works perfectly to offer a tool for all platforms and to go from there. I can´t see nothing wrong about that.

Then again - why wasn't I informed of a "crossgrade offer" (with a fair deal no less)? I mean, not that I use the DR Meter exclusively these days (as mentioned before, for me it's "added/bonus information" and I outgrew it with the K-System v1, my own K-System like concept based ITU-R BS.1770-x metering, and ITU-R BS.1770-x metering itself). In fact, quite the contrary.

Friedemann: Actually all PMF supporters have received a cross grade offer and DRMeter users will be able to upgrade to the DRMeter MkII if they like.

But still... I really felt being pushed away back in the days. First we interested users all had access to TT-DR Meter for free (as mentioned, "education ware"). Then I had to sign up to the campaign page (still getting it for free), then I was asked to "Invest", else no access to updates anymore. After that, years of radio silence, an "unsanctioned release" (read OMas's comment below) via brainworx, and then out of nowhere "here we are, please invest again". Even though 5USD of the new purchase will be forwarded to the PMF "campaign" to spread awareness (similar to what fellow engineer Ian Shepherd is doing)...

Sorry, but this just doesn't feel right IMO.

Friedemann: A non profit foundation requires donations to work. The old model didn´t work. Now we have a chance to use the money for a new page (which is more than over due) and having an own software company makes it more reliable for us deliver more and better technology solutions. Some things need some patience and long breath and I still see demands for education, information and other solutions to come to create more awareness for sound quality. I have continued my activities to create sound awareness and educate people throughout the years, possibly not so visible to the public but with quite some impact and nobody is more happy than I, when we have the tools and budget to continue the PMF work on a bigger scale.

2. In order to let the beloved and still bench mark tools of Algorithmix survive we needed to start a software company to do it because I haven´t been able to find anything which comes close.

I am aware that the PMF site is super out dated and requires some intense love. So MAAT is simply an inherent part of the big picture delivering the prerequisite to re-start PMF in conjunction with technical solutions.
So please have some patience so that we can work down a long list of to do´s to contribute to a better sounding world. I am certain that you will appreciate the stuff to come.

Not to be overly critical, but after the rise of ITU-R BS.1770-x (and all it's derivations), I personally think that DRMeter is just not relevant anymore.

Friedemann: Read the manual please. LUi is for loudness normalization and LRA simply does NOT work for MOR music.

The (ITU-R) meter pretty much fixed all flaws with realtime RMS metering (prefilter and ballistics adjustments, or simplified: implementation of a weighting filter). Not to mention that concepts like "Mastered for iTunes" and "Loudness Normalization for Streaming Services" made Peak Limiting pretty much obsolete.

Friedemann: Maybe in 10 years but look out and hear and you will agree that it´ll take quite some time until meaningless peak truncation just for the sake of loudness has ended.

Heck, that was even a topic at AES142/Berlin's main panel (Loudenss War). So why re-introduce something that was confusing and (dare I even say it) flawed to begin with? Just to create a mkII version, which (from my basic understanding so far) will be an ITU-R BS.1770-x based meter, with the DRMeter built in "realtime" as additional information drop?

Because it makes sense and users appreciate it.

We audio engineers all have the same goal - create well balanced mixes, and get rid of over-compressed releases. But why does everyone have to create their own "standards", their "defacto only solution" to get there? I've been criticizing this for years on various communities at this point.

Friedemann: I´ve always looking for cooperation being open for joining forces. It seems to be a disease of the music industry with too many egos. Do we have a union? etc. etc...

So, if you are interested in supporting the aims feel free to reach out.
Please excuse me, that I can´t further react on this thread just due to time limitations.
Best, Friedemann