no, it was not a correction , it was the second post I made in this thread. The first one simply stated that most of my tracks average at around -15db.Tone Deft wrote: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.
No, I said that you were being insulting and willfully avoiding what people were saying. You used the 'appeal to authority' to tried to belittle any clarification and further misrepresented what was being said so as to maker it seem ludicrous.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.
your points were:
1: RMS is not intrinsically linked to decibels
2: RMS is not good as an indicator of peak, which is more important
3: RMS is not a noun and so you cannot say " the RMS of this song"
I kept saying.
1: yes, this is why all the variables here have 'db' on them. So we know what we are talking about.
2: we understand that RMS is not an indicator of peak, we are looking at the song decibel average below peak.
3: we can actually use RMS as a noun, because we can refer to the product of an average as "the average", IE the result.