WHAT RMS FOR YOUR TRACKS?

[Tone Deft]

you come in this thread to throw insults and post South Park?

[master swing]

fuck you pal. that's an attack, dipshit.

glad you noticed

[master swing]

you come in this thread to throw insults and post South Park?

You could learn something from that episode.

[master swing]

RMS is a type of measurement, it is not a noun.

is type a noun? is measurement a noun?

[Tone Deft]

thanks Angstrom.

[tw1nstates]

This post made me realize that most of my tracks actually top out above -6db, usually in the -3db range. I got into this habit even after reading Tarekith's tutorials - must've missed the part where he advised to not go over -6db on the master.

Anyhow, a few questions:

- If I plan on doing my own "mastering" (meaning that I'm just going to slap a limiter on to the final mix), do I need to worry about the fact that I have less headroom? I assume there's nothing "magical" about -6db?

Correct, if you are doing it for yourself then mix to whereever you want. For my own stuff I go to -0.1 bd then start with the mastering fx (assuming no eq, i'll try to sort balance out in the track)

Then some compression then limiting.

If I am sending i out then -6dbs. Though to be honest I have delivered stuff at -1 db and it's not been a problem. They just attenuate it on the desk or whatever. . .


- If I did want more headroom, could I simply put a utility on the master and lower the gain?

Yes, also worth a check is sonalksis free g i think it's called.

much bettter than the live meters.. . (more accurate).

- I'm probably not alone in using the kick as a foundation to build a track around - in other words, the volume of the kick stays constant, while other elements are mixed around it. What peak level for a kick do you typically start out with, to ensure that your mix remains under -6db.

good question,

it varies from track to track. One project I have got open at the moment has go tthe live master at 0db, FreeG attenuating the master out by 4 dbs, the kick is at -6.8 then I have it going into the sonalksis compressor giving it about 2.5 dbs of make up gain into Elephant which is adding another 4db or so and outputting the final file at -0.3 db. RMS value is about -9/10dbs for the final track when everything is going on at the same time which is about the same as most of the stuff I have on my hard drive from beatport that I would consider loud but not excessively squashed. . . Hope that helps?

Production is a goddman rabbit hole. It seems like as soon as I have something figured out, I realize I'm doing it wrong.

Hmm, a lot of it's subjective and unfortunately the internet is full of people who tell you what to do hen they don't *really* know what they are on about.

Mastering is tricky, but a really good start is the Harbal tutorial I posted earlier. it's basic in the way that Bob katz book isn't. I.e. it's not for total amatures but you dont need to worry about K Sytem metering or any of that stuff (although when I move to my new studio I am gonna set it all up in accordance with that).

Also, do yourself the biggest favour you can for your music and buy yourself a copy of Mixing with your mind. It's expensive but I have learnt more from that book than any other. The sections on compression and reverb are worth the money alone imo. . .

It's a rabbit hole but with good guidance it doesnt have to be so, get good books, be sceptical about what you read on forums cos some of it is definitely wrong and compare to other stuff as much as possible and I reckon that;'s a good start.

oh and get that book, it's amazing

[Johnisfaster]

RMS is a type of measurement, it is not a noun.

is type a noun? is measurement a noun?

a decibel is a noun, metric is a noun, so I'm gonna go ahead and say that a type of measurement (ie. rms) is a noun then.

in fact according to dictionary.com

root mean square
?–noun Mathematics.
the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the numbers in a given set of numbers. Abbreviation: rms

[Tone Deft]

yeah, go for it john.

"what is the RMS?" - approach that shit for brains. it makes no sense.

can't follow the thread, can you?

RMS is a way of reading a measurement. it's not a measurement in and of itself. it has no dimensions, it's a technique or an interpretation of the results.

john don't even try to answer, you don't know a damn thing about audio. I know, I've watched you here for years. go thrift store shopping for some arcane controller.

[SimonPHC]

So what is an acceptable time frame to measure such a rms?
It's a valid question as the Live compressor uses it as a mode.
How long does Live's compressor take to rms a signal?

[Tone Deft]

ask johnisfaster, all of a sudden the retard knows audio.

[SimonPHC]

RMS is a way of reading a measurement. it's not a measurement in and of itself.

you're right and also wrong. it depends on what you think 'measurement' means. reading a set of measured data as a whole is a measurement in itself too, in whatever way (in this case the root mean whatever). what I quote you saying is that a measurement is one value out of a limited set of values, but one can also use the set of values as a whole to calculate figures about the set in total, like in this case, the RMS. so I believe you're wrong on this one.

[steko]

One day Semanticsman will crush you all!

[Tone Deft]

One day Semanticsman will crush you all!

it's audioman asshole. I like audio, this stuff matters to me. piss off.

goddamn it's getting stupid around here.

[yoshitosser]

So, back on topic, I wanna crush the fuck out of my track to make it louder than all that pussy "non-dance" music.

Is Fruity Loops my best option or can I do it in Live?

[Tone Deft]

RMS is a way of reading a measurement. it's not a measurement in and of itself.

you're right and also wrong. it depends on what you think 'measurement' means. reading a set of measured data as a whole is a measurement in itself too, in whatever way (in this case the root mean whatever). what I quote you saying is that a measurement is one value out of a limited set of values, but one can also use the set of values as a whole to calculate figures about the set in total, like in this case, the RMS. so I believe you're wrong on this one.

my only point is that the thread title was vague and the OP might want to revisit RMS to more accurately convey what he's asking for.

what I quote you saying is that a measurement is one value out of a limited set of values
no, I did not write that. I wrote that it's a technique.


suppose you can measure length with your left or right hand, each was a different result eg 2 left = 1 right, so right was always a larger number. if I asked you "what's the right of the signal?" it's vague, one would ask "what's the length of the signal in rights?"

this is the language associated with RMS. I use this for a living and it's a pain in the ass when people screw it up. so I suggested that the OP watch his phrasing. then Angstrom gets all dogmatic and contextual and johnisretarded thinks he can join in for some reason.

how many times have I tried to just back out of this and say it's no big deal?