WHAT RMS FOR YOUR TRACKS?

[Angstrom]

'average' can be a noun or an adjective depending on context.

So if, for example, a person had stated that he was taking an average of a set of decibel values to produce a result he could then refer to that result figure as 'the average'.
There would be no need to constantly re-iterate what the average was of as long as context was established.

EG: "the figure is the averaged decibel values of a song"
then referring to that result as :"the average"

the dictionary gives this parallel example

Although the wines vary, the average is quite good.

But if you then quote a person saying talking about 'the average' and remove it from the context of the stated set then it becomes meaningless. Thankfully I used 'the average' after I had defined what it was an average of.

but isn't it great to take the specified 'the average' out of context and call someone laughable.

[tw1nstates]

Let's talk about Crest Factor, far more important.

Thanks, you are right. Just been doing a little reading about crest factor.

Average between RMS and peak levels. . .

But assuming hat everyone normalises or mixes to 0db, - which actually thinking about it I guess is not the case as a lot of people are gonna mix to -6db or lower if they sending the work out. . .

But no one measures crest factor, well you obviously do when mastering peoples stuff. . .

Is there anything I can use to measure crest factor in my tracks pre mastering, preferably without spending loads of cash?

I know RND finis does it. But I would have another mastering compressor that i don't need to spend the money for as I have got Elephant which rocks. . .

Thanks

[mlehmann]

A very good freeware plugin to measure crest factor is Dynamic Range Meter from Pleasurize Music Foundation:

http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/

[Tone Deft]

'average' can be a noun or an adjective depending on context.

So if, for example, a person had stated that he was taking an average of a set of decibel values to produce a result he could then refer to that result figure as 'the average'.
There would be no need to constantly re-iterate what the average was of as long as context was established.

EG: "the figure is the averaged decibel values of a song"
then referring to that result as :"the average"

the dictionary gives this parallel example

Although the wines vary, the average is quite good.

But if you then quote a person saying talking about 'the average' and remove it from the context of the stated set then it becomes meaningless. Thankfully I used 'the average' after I had defined what it was an average of.

but isn't it great to take the specified 'the average' out of context and call someone laughable.

you're starting to get it.

asking "what is the average of a song" doesn't really make sense. so I suggested that the OP might consider rewording the question.

I did a reality check and asked myself what it would really sound like if someone asked me "what is the RMS of the song?" I literally laughed, it is laughable. I also wrote a few times in this thread that the point got across anyway and it's not a big deal.

go ask someone you respect this same question, they will laugh at you. "what's the RMS of my song?"

it's just a suggestion.

[Tone Deft]

fishmonkey!! welcome to the flame war!!

actually i did read the thread, and i hear where you are coming from...

however, if you wanna play semantics (which is fair enough), then it's not unreasonable to expect to have your own semantics questioned...

according to your logic "length" must be an adjective in the statement "a length measurement" (it's not, it's always a noun)...

just because a word indicates a kind or class of something doesn't automatically make it an adjective...

actually it does.

what type of measurement? an RMS measurement.


kthxbye leave the flame war...

[Angstrom]

'average' can be a noun or an adjective depending on context.

So if, for example, a person had stated that he was taking an average of a set of decibel values to produce a result he could then refer to that result figure as 'the average'.
There would be no need to constantly re-iterate what the average was of as long as context was established.

EG: "the figure is the averaged decibel values of a song"
then referring to that result as :"the average"

the dictionary gives this parallel example

Although the wines vary, the average is quite good.

But if you then quote a person saying talking about 'the average' and remove it from the context of the stated set then it becomes meaningless. Thankfully I used 'the average' after I had defined what it was an average of.

but isn't it great to take the specified 'the average' out of context and call someone laughable.

you're starting to get it.

asking "what is the average of a song" doesn't really make sense. so I suggested that the OP might consider rewording the question.

I did a reality check and asked myself what it would really sound like if someone asked me "what is the RMS of the song?" I literally laughed, it is laughable. I also wrote a few times in this thread that the point got across anyway and it's not a big deal.

go ask someone you respect this same question, they will laugh at you. "what's the RMS of my song?"

it's just a suggestion.

I am not "starting to get it", I am repeating myself because you continue to call me laughable.

Earlier I stated the terms of the average result The average result is a noun. "The Average"=

the Root Mean Squared (average) db values of an entire track(song)

to which you told me

RMS is simply the Root Mean Squared value of a signal. it doesn't imply decibels or any use of the measurement

Of course RMS doesn't imply decibels, that's why I specified that this was an average of decibels.

then I referred to that stated average without reiterating the long explanation of what the average was of.

This will give the RMS for the whole song

IE: "this action in soundforge is what produces the RMS averaged amplitude values result that we just talked about"

to which you replied

RMS is a type of measurement, it is not a noun. yes, 'the RMS of something.' again, to ask about "the RMS" is like asking about "the blue" the blue what?

I had already stated what the average was of, "the average " as a noun referred to the product of the averaging of the amplitude values in decibels of an entire track.

You are not starting to get it.

[Tone Deft]

RMS does not imply dB at all. it has no dimensions to it. it's a technique.

you also said RMS tells you the dynamic range of a track, which is completely retarded.

it was just a suggestion Angstrom, why do you feel the need to argue about nothing?

why do you keep belaboring the definition of RMS? I've done more hand written math calculating RMS than all the math you've done in your entire life. I know it's new to you but I know what RMS means.

this is almost as lame as Master Swing's thread on applying chorus to the master track. almost, keep it up you'll take it there.

[Angstrom]

RMS does not imply dB at all. it has no dimensions to it..

you may have calculated many things, but you cannot read what I keep re-typing

Of course RMS doesn't imply decibels, that's why I specified that this was an average of decibels.

IE, when you press that button in soundforge, what does that number that it prints on the screen mean?
it is an average of the output levels, as measured in decibels.

we can have an RMS of building heights, but RMS does not 'imply height' either. That's why a person might specify "the RMS is an average of the building heights as measured in cm" when talking about a specific RMS result.

I specified that the image I showed was displaying an RMS of decibels. As shown in the picture and explained in my text. But responded to by you insanely

[Tone Deft]

I'm not reading your posts thoroughly because I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

this was not an average of decibels, this was just asking what the average was. the average of what? the average of the song, but what aspect of the song? measured in what? in decibels? in amplitude? in SPL out of his monitors?

so I suggested the wording be reviewed. it's just a suggestion, are you some kind of moderator?

simply asking about the RMS is vague. hence my suggestion.

what do you want?

[Angstrom]

I'm not reading your posts thoroughly because I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

this was not an average of decibels,

It was an average of decibels of a 4 minute time window

the Root Mean Squared (average) db values of an entire track

an average of decibels



to which you replied that RMS does not imply decibels.

despite the fact that I specifically said this was an average of decibels.

you then called me laughable

[Tone Deft]

I don't care what you posted, it was directed at the OP. then you took the reigns and literally insist that we argue about this. class act all the way!!

the OP started a thread asking 'what the RMS is' which is vague for all the reasons we've demonstrated in this bullshit. so I suggested that... bah, forget it.

when you take an RMS measurement it does not always come out in dB. if you want to take an RMS of dB, you can do that.

I called anyone who would come to me and ask what the RMS is laughable because I would laugh. if that's you, so be it. go ahead and try it on someone you respect, see if they don't get a chuckle out of it.

that's what put sand up your twat? being called laughable? I can think of a few other words, better not, you already feel *gasp* attacked.

this is lame man, what do you want from me?

[Angstrom]

I don't care what you posted, it was directed at the OP.

you specifically called me out, quoted me for specifics, called me a noob, and then repeatedly used part of what I said out of context and called it laughable.
You think I'm not going be annoyed by that?

You may think that an RMS average of the decibel values in a song do not give any dynamics information, but I do.
Oddly, mastering engineers also seem to think that RMS is a guide to the dynamics of a song

> My question is this: Is this ok? I know we have all talked about the lack
> of dynamic range in recordings nowadays, and thats what i want to avoid,
> but i'm afraid i'm leaving the mastering engineer too much dynamic range.
I see some rock with -20dB RMS average and orchestra around -25dB or more once in awhile. Lot's of music at -15dB. There really isn't a standard on using RMS for perceived levels, as all music is different from one song to the next. Things like dead air breaks, fade ins/outs, long decay sections etc. can give you a lower RMS reading on a song that sounds louder, than one with higher RMS.A fade in from black to -3dB, that occurs in a fast crescendo, will sound louder than a gradual rise in gain from -15 to -3dB. Even though the peaks are thesame and the RMS average is louder on the -15dB to -3dB section.

http://www.digido.com/mastering-enginee ... ixing.html


I assume that these are not the same people who will laugh in my face?

please tell them how RMS is no guide to dynamics and also that RMS does not 'imply' decibels. I'm sure they'd love to know.

[Tone Deft]

no man, I never, ever called you a n00b. in fact way back on page 3 I was kissing your ass
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?p=915881#p915881

I also completely bow down to any points you make from your real world experience, I have mine, you have yours. they might be different but I completely respect your experiences.

that's far more respect than you've EVER shown other people. can't say I still stand by this remark.

if you can't laugh at yourself, kill yourself.



you should notice that the author of that link specifies their measurements clearly, a smart thing to do when invoking RMS.

you should also notice that they talk about the high and low levels of a song. earlier in this bullshit you were referring to a single RMS value as showing the dynamics of a song. no, you need the high and the low values. you were not so specific.

[Angstrom]

you should notice that the author of that link specifies their measurements clearly, a smart thing to do when invoking RMS.
you should also notice that they talk about the high and low levels of a song. earlier in this bullshit you were referring to a single RMS value as showing the dynamics of a song. no, you need the high and the low values. you were not so specific.

I specified the measurements clearly

the Root Mean Squared (average) db values

I talked about the high and low values of the song providing the boundaries for understanding an averaged values

a track that has a quietest moment at -30db and a peak at 0db might have an RMS of -15
of course, I'm oversimplifying and using a nasty peak value, but that's roughly how an RMS value can indicate the dynamic range of your song.

I was that specific

your talk about me never showing respect to anyone is pretty off the wall, I'm not known for being a troll or flamer.

[Tone Deft]

did not.

that was a correction you made after I first denounced the idea that a single RMS value is enough to measure the dynamic range.

what is this even about? we're arguing about the arguing. you're just protecting your ego, you've pretty much already admitted to that.