Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Mastering Forum (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/)
-   -   When someone says -12db RMS. (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/352357-when-someone-says-12db-rms.html)

Bob Yordan 29th December 2008 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lm66 (Post 3763219)
According to AES17 standard for RMS values, this track is around -4.5 dB RMS.

Of course sound is awfully distorted...

LOL, well it was more posted as a warning example of not to rely on
looking at wav forms & RMS etc etc. heppy

howdy

audiovisceral 29th December 2008 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Oxford (Post 3769224)
“You're using too many hard words that’s why sir I'm getting more confused.”

The reason for this is that I’m a tremendous fan of the great American Author P.G.Wodehouse.

So may I respectfully commend to you that extraordinarily useful tome, The English Dictionary whenever you encounter a word you simply do not understand?


Furthermore I additionally suggest this use of a dictionary, because it is reasonable to presume that whenever a person actively takes part in a Forum such as this, it is for one of three reasons.

They wish to share something important and enlightening.

They wish to learn and grow in understanding.

They are a Troll.

A fourth reason is self-indulgence.

Perhaps you could use the OP's misunderstanding to learn the art of brevity and conciseness?

No offense intended, but sometimes less really is more. Simple, short sentences might be clearer.

peachh

Lagerfeldt 29th December 2008 11:19 AM

sarcasm - Wiktionary

Peter Oxford 29th December 2008 11:20 AM

“Perhaps you could use the misunderstanding to learn the art of brevity and conciseness?”






It’s entirely true to disclose that elsewhere; many people feel the posts are far too brief and concise altogether.

That is a scientifically verifiable, easy to prove, immutable fact!







P

Nordenstam 29th December 2008 12:16 PM

What a deliciously interesting juxtaposition of minds, in this thread!


As for difficult words - many browser have a search bar next to the navigation bar. On this here windows machine, helping me to write this message, searching for a certain word takes about five seconds. One second to mark the word of interest, then two seconds to:
CTRL-C to copy word to memory
CTRL-T to open new tab in browser
TAB to move from navigation bar to to search bar
CTRL-V to paste word in search bar
ENTER to search
.. The last two seconds are used to move the mouse pointer to the search result of interest (usually an online dictionary) and click the left mouse button.

If you'll excuse the language, I might say it's a bl**dy fast alternative to the good old dictionary. :)

Peter Oxford 29th December 2008 12:41 PM

What a deliciously interesting juxtaposition of minds, in this thread!”







Precisely!

My thoughts exactly.

And of the original post floccinaucinihilipilification.








“On this here windows machine, helping me to write this message, searching for a certain word takes about five seconds.”

-Snipped for Shortness -

“I might say it's a bl**dy fast alternative to the good old dictionary. :)”







Brilliant points, very well made.

AskOxford: Search Oxford Dictionaries Online





It’s so concise!





P

Lagerfeldt 29th December 2008 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupo (Post 3769291)
CTRL-C to copy word to memory
CTRL-T to open new tab in browser
TAB to move from navigation bar to to search bar
CTRL-V to paste word in search bar
ENTER to search
.. The last two seconds are used to move the mouse pointer to the search result of interest (usually an online dictionary) and click the left mouse button.

On Mac:

Mark word with cursor
Right click and choose lookup in Google

Edward_Vinatea 29th December 2008 05:38 PM

Not Just Mac. The easiest way on PC is also to highlight the word, right click and choose from menu "search Google For"

Regards,

kjg 29th December 2008 06:54 PM

@imdookieatmaster:
Since Peter Oxford's posts are quite long, you might miss the one point that is most important for you to understand:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Oxford (Post 3769224)

If I gave you direct answers to your questions, it would teach you what you want to know.

The trouble is, that it would not teach you what you need to know, and that is to be in the active habit of learning.

Good luck with getting less "dookie" at mastering! You have a long way ahead of you, but it is possible if you take Peter's advice to heart.

@Peter Oxford:
Thank you for your posts and particularly for the link to the very interesting article "Why do equalisers sound different?".

With kind regards,
Klaas-Jan Govaart

Nordenstam 29th December 2008 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt (Post 3769438)
On Mac:
Mark word with cursor
Right click and choose lookup in Google

Hey... Look at that! Translations and stuff two clicks away. Thanks! :)

Peter Oxford 29th December 2008 10:02 PM

‘Thank you for your posts and particularly for the link to the very interesting article "Why do equalisers sound different?"’






It’s a pleasure to be of service in some small way.

It does of course provide much rare information that brings great clarity to many aspects of EQ’s design and operation that other’s struggle with to understand.

Furthermore, I have greatly fond memories of the writer Michael Gerzon, an enchantingly delightful, charming and brilliant individual, undoubtedly one of the very finest Mathematicians I have ever met.

Michael Gerzon Audio Pioneer




'Best known for inventing Ambisonics and the Soundfield Microphone, he was also a prolific sound recording engineer whose archive of recorded material is now stored for the nation in The British Library National Sound Archive.

His other inventions include DVD-Audio, Lossless Data Compression algorithms and numerous software-based audio engineering tools which today are the mainstay of modern digital music production techniques.

Having studied at Oxford University, his post-graduate work at The Mathematical Institute was primary concerned with axiomatic quantum theory.

He also wrote enormous amounts of poetry and owned one of the largest and most valuable rare vinyl record collections ever amassed.’



This tells nothing of his interactions with household names, some of the most renowned figures in the history of recording.

But to be honest, these tremendous accomplishments in so very short a life time, are almost as nothing to me at all.

When held against the tremendously amusing, magnetically captivating personality I remember with great affection.



It is a great privilege to bring his profoundly deep and perspicacious writing to your attention.

There is a new book out about him that may be of interest to you.


'Michael Gerzon – Beyond Psychoacoustics'
by Robert Charles Alexander


'Michael Gerzon - Beyond Psychoacoustics' - by Robert Charles Alexander

About The Book





Happy Christmas!






P

NFL 29th December 2008 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imdookieatmaster (Post 3760791)
When someone says radio pop an average volume of -12 db RMS.
What does this mean? -12 db RMS?

I know -12 db means the volume level but what is the RMS mean?

Thanks.

Ok, I'll have another go at it and see if I can answer your question instead of just commenting...



As you already know by now, the term 'RMS' refers to the average level.

There are two different ways of measuring RMS, the one doing square-waves, and the one doing sine-waves.

They are 3 db apart.

In your example, I guess the person has been measuring the song as a whole, and with a software displaying RMS as square-wave measured.

In another application that could have been measured as -9 RMS, as the other way of measuring – the sine-wave method – is 3 db different.

This way – the sine-wave method – is also a standard, the AES-17.

Some will tell you now that this is the only way of measuring, and they always refer to RMS being measured by the AES-17 standards.
The fact is sadly enough that some applications and software/plug-ins measure one way, and some another.

So there is in fact no way of knowing what that person means, without knowing the measuring method, and another sad fact is that most people talking about RMS seem to be ignorant about that there in fact are different ways of measuring it and that they are 3 db apart.

In addition, if one is not measuring a song as a whole, but instead are doing continually RMS-measuring, then, as Lagerfeldt commented, there are in fact lots of more variations, since the time windows for measuring is also different from application to application.

Then again, most people – if saying about a song that it is so-and-so RMS – have loaded it into a wave-editor and pressed the statistics buttton.

If you really want to know, do some research and find out what ways the different applications and plugins measure RMS, and ask him what application he used to measure, then, with your research, you should be able to tell what he really mean.

jkthtyrt



Good luck with your research and quest for knowledge.

– Njal Frode

jimmyz 11th December 2009 03:10 AM

Hi guys,

Anyone know of good software for calculating the average RMS of a track? I'm looking for something non-realtime here. Would be great to 'audiosuite' this over a mix compared to loud current masters for comparison.

Thanks!

J

mainframe 11th December 2009 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyz (Post 4875511)
Hi guys,

Anyone know of good software for calculating the average RMS of a track? I'm looking for something non-realtime here. Would be great to 'audiosuite' this over a mix compared to loud current masters for comparison.

Thanks!

J

e.g. wavelab -> analysis -> global analysis (loudness)

petit panda 12th December 2009 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyz (Post 4875511)
Anyone know of good software for calculating the average RMS of a track?

There's another ripe source of potential confusion as well as being 3dB out! Average RMS, or Total RMS? Or perhaps even Minimum or Maximum RMS? mezed

flatfinger 12th December 2009 10:00 PM

OK,


Now lets hear everything you wanted to know about Creat Factor ; but were afraid to ask !!!!


Another term that is helpfull is "habituation " ...

This is another way of describing that most humans notice stuff the most when it changes. You smell the fresh brewed coffee in the air when you first walk into it , but mere minutes later , you stop being conscious of it . We did evolve with a brain that scans and takes note of changes first and formost.

That is why a composition that has the crest factor of white noise is boring . Unless some other component such as the lyrical content can keep your attention , most will relegate it into the background along with the coffee aroma .


RMS = Really Means Stupid ( if thats all you aim for )tutt




Cheers

flatfinger 12th December 2009 10:08 PM

I think that I heard once that the AES-17 was a proposal that changes the calculation for the purpose of avoiding confusion.. In that it is understood that the peak RMS and average RMS don't really have to be deliniated from one another that way

( it's a kludge !!)

drkoosh 11th September 2011 11:00 AM

Peter Oxford = Yoda
Bumping this shat, coz it's awesome.
Read Peter's comments from page 1 through to the end.

Joe_caithness 11th September 2011 12:46 PM

tl:dr

mastringshuset 11th September 2011 07:06 PM

Thank you Peter!
Very informative and nerdy posts, just the way I like it :-P

Ben B 12th September 2011 01:17 PM

Mathematically, the RMS value of a series of points (or voltages, in this case) is calculated by squaring each point, taking the average of the squares, and then dividing this by the number of voltage points measured. You then take the square root of this number to get the RMS value. (It's literally the root of the mean of the squares.) For a simple sinusoid, this works out to be 0.707 times its peak amplitude. It's a type of averaging, though not the same as taking the arithmetric mean of a series of values.

Meters with RMS ballistics are meant to convey some information about the perceived loudness of a signal. They do this better than a peak meter would, as our hearing apparatus perceives loudness not by peak level, but by something closer to RMS level.

The RMS of a signal doesn't tell the whole story of its perceived loudness, since one can have two signals with the same RMS and make one sound louder than the other by filtering out its very low frequencies that we do not efficiently hear. It's even possible for a somewhat lower RMS signal to sound louder, depending on its frequency content/balance. This is why simply looking at an RMS meter to decide if your master is competitively loud is insufficient on its own.

-Ben B

restpause 22nd September 2011 07:57 AM

-12 dB RMS for the type of music that I listen to is the highest I can stand. A lot of great classic tunes were made in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s at -15 to -12 dB RMS as well

Nicholas West 22nd September 2011 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imdookieatmaster (Post 3761027)
So then what is the purpose of an RMS, if we can just look at the peak level and get it away from -0 db.

Peak levels don't tell you how loud your track is. They tell you how close your audio is to distortion due to clipping. Your hearing cannot detect most transient peaks; they happen too fast. Your brain and ears measure loudness by the average level of the track; the RMS.

In digital audio, you adjust peaks to avoid clipping, and thus distortion; you adjust RMS to change loudness. In general.

That's why VU meters were generally sufficient to adjust analog audio. Fast audio transient peaks shoot right through a VU meter without the meter showing them, but it gives an OK indication of average loudness. However, digital is 100% unforgiving of peaks over 0dbFS, unlike analog media which is very forgiving of high levels. So peak meters became necessary on digital equipment, because the human ear (or a VU meter) cannot always hear a peak that will distort digital audio.

StringBean 22nd September 2011 10:32 PM

Mr. Oxford's posts are like music today.


Much crap must one sift through to find the parcels of wisdom.


My brain threshold peaked halfway through and I stopped internalizing.


And I have two professors from Princeton with irrefutable evidence of it.


And my father was Einstein therefore what I say is inevitably true and I am genius.