MAAT TT DR (recreation) vs LUFS?

I received a notification from MAAT, who has a deal with PMF (Pleasurize Music Foundation), for a discount on their “next generation DRMeter, a recreation of the original TT DR Meter”. They have apparently updated the old DR TT Meter with PMF’s blessing. They are also offering an updated version of DROffline. Both are pretty reasonably priced, especially with the discount (“courtesy cross-grade offer MAAT agreed on with the PMF”) off the cost of that first one. You would have to have been a PMF member to get the discount via email.

Anyway, just wondering if this is like cloning dinosaurs (like in Jurassic Park) now that LUFS seems to be ruling the airwaves and streamwaves. Does anybody still use the DR TT Meter and is it still relevant? I do still use it on occasion, though it’s one of those 32-bit plugins I don’t use a whole lot in Reaper, and I have been using LUFS more often. The system requirements on the new one says 32/64-bit, but I think that’s in regard to the OS. I don’t see where they say if the new plugs are 64-bit or not, but surely any respectable plugin that’s not free would be by now?

Inspiring music producers and artists worldwide for more dynamic music releases, this “micro” version will soon be followed by its big brother. The upcoming, upgradable DRMeterMkII features all modern metering algorithms, including True Peak Level and Loudness Units compliant with EBU R128 and ATSC A/85. MAAT paid particular attention to the DRMeter’s ballistics, which contributed to the original’s broad acceptance. We have tested the new DRMeter again and again against the original TT DR Meter to ensure a consistent user experience. In addition, DRMeter is modern, supporting all major plug-in formats including VST/VST3 and AAX for MacOS and Windows plus Audio Units for Mac.

So it looks like this offer isn’t the full version, that is coming later. The image looks basically just like the old DR TT Meter as to basic functions.

Have you checked out youlean’s loudness meter? It has tons of options and it’s free.


Ah, thanks for the heads-up! I’ll give that one a try.

I can’t think of a good reason to use it. Is there one?


Well, it’s more fun to watch it than the LUFS meter. Those pulsing glowing stereo bars are mesmerizing and almost psychedelic. :grin: And my guess is that since these people invested time and (presumably) money in developing the new TT Meter they’re expecting there is a market for it.

And it appears that they are now 64-bit:

Alas, as with all things digital, the TT DR Meter grew old, especially as the original meter was only available in 32-bit and so wouldn’t work on current 64-bit architecture DAWs. An update was needed and MATT Digital has stepped up.

I do like that Youlean meter that Boz posted, better than the Klangfreund LUFS meter. And the Klangfreund (the free version) has been crashing Reaper so that became a strike against it. Obviously, if a LUFS reading is needed then that’s the one to go with.

AJ113 wrote:
“Does anybody still use the DR TT Meter and is it still relevant? I can’t think of a good reason to use it. Is there one?”

Not to be a PITA, but there are several…
a) Unlike R128 and BS. 1770 meters, DR measures dynamic range from the perspective of a music engineer’s needs. In contrast, R128 and 1770 are designed to control loudness for commercials, not measure dynamic range for music, especially pop music. DR isn’t designed for broadcast loudness control, it’s purpose is to gauge the amount of dynamic range reduction, or the absence of dynamic range contrast. Joni Mitchell versus Metallica, if you will. R128 and DR are both useful, but each has its purpose.

b) DR was designed by Friedemann Tischmeyer, a member of the EBU ploud committee, the same body that created R128. He needed a metering system that informs an engineer about how much the mix is being/has been “stepped on,” dynamic range-wise, not about “will it pass through a broadcast chain without loudness reduction?”

c) DR is a tool not only for pro audio peeps, but (gasp) your audience as well, especially audiophiles, since DR is used by music enthusiasts to judge and compare music releases. There’s a DR database that records the values of tens of thousands of songs and albums, so the public can compare different releases and remastered versions.

Full disclosure: Like my colleague Friedemann, I’m one of the MAAT founders. All of us are working on a new, comprehensive metering product that will combine DR, R128, 1770 and A85 into a carefully considered, easy to live with, realtime metering product that will address the needs of most indy engineers that work on a wider range of projects than just spots and broadcast content.


Thank you for the heads up!! And cool to have you here!

Thanks for your interest, Dudes!

Some of us are from Europe and detest the “dudes” epithet.

PS Give my best to Fred.

I think you and AJ are the only ones who’d consider yourself British nationalist enough to care. Or is that English white purist? Wouldn’t want other cultures to taint your ideals.

I never thought it worked that well honestly, at least in real time I thought it didn’t paint an accurate picture by measuring every dip in a song. However I use the one that actually analyzes the file after you’ve rendered it and leaves a log frequently and post on frequently.

I know this is sort of an annoying position to take, but I’ve never really understood the purpose of having a meter to tell me the dynamic range of a song, unless there are specific broadcast purposes for it.

If I’m going to push a song loud, I’m going to do it because I think it sounds better loud, despite what the number on the meter tells me.

Now, if I push my song loud and it falls apart when my measurements show more dynamic range than another song that is both loud and sounds good, then it’s probably an indicator of some other issue (mix issues, bad limiter settings, etc)

I don’t want to say “user your ears” because I hate when people say that, but there’s good squashed and there bad squashed, and a meter isn’t really going to tell me which one it is.

I don’t make decisions based on the meter, I just check it sometimes out of sheer curiosity. It has no effect on what I do.

Same here. It certainly is interesting, but I’ve never been able to figure out how to make it a part of my workflow that actually mattered. I guess I feel that way about meters in general though. I’m generally more than happy to just use the peak meters in the DAW.

I guess I just don’t find it logical to make decisions based on a single number. If I feel a mix kicks ass and is punchy in all the right ways, I don’t need a meter telling me my DR isn’t up to snuff. “Trust your ears before the gear” - Michael Wagener.

Looking at this in retrospect, I found the TT DR Meter to be very valuable for learning a reference method for loudness and getting specific about the Loudness Wars. And I used that all during the Slate Digital mixing contest on RR. If it weren’t for that contest, I doubt I would have explored mixing to -6dB to see the consequences of that approach. I continued to use the meter for some time, but used it less and less after that. It was a good training tool in that sense.

I feel that I have been able to get a sense of translating the response of the DR Meter to just watching the Master RMS meter in the DAW. I noticed some degree of correspondence so that has become more of my go-to guide. I don’t know if that is a good gauge, but it certainly got me to pay more attention to how RMS is moving and particularly in regard to Peak.

Good to see you again, Stan. Where’d you run off to? You were gone for over a week.

I had two tickets to paradise, so I packed my bags and I left that night. I waited so long, waited so long. I was gonna disappear, on a trip so far from here. That’s about it. Now I’m back. :grin:

1 Like