16 Mar
2010
16 Mar
'10
12:26 p.m.
Hi
Someone just asked my what's the "average RMS" of my audio. It's
supposedly a measure of which side (good or evil) you're on in the
loudness war.
Which app could do this for me?
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
16 Mar
16 Mar
12:32 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Atte André Jensen
<atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
Someone just asked my what's the "average RMS" of my audio. It's
supposedly a measure of which side (good or evil) you're on in the
loudness war.
Which app could do this for me?
$ normalize-audio -n yourfile.wav
ciao
--
cb
17 Mar
17 Mar
7:09 a.m.
8:21 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:09:31AM +0100, Atte André Jensen wrote:
becks wrote:
> $ normalize-audio -n yourfile.wav
Note that the result is *not* the 'average RMS' level
but the maximum RMS over any 1 second period.
It's an indication of the maximum volume, not the
average one. If you just take the slice of one sec
that produced the maximum and replace the rest by
silence you get the same value.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
1:31 p.m.
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:16:57 +0100
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:09:31AM +0100, Atte André
Jensen wrote:
Always gets messy when you say average and RMS in the same sentence :)
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
becks wrote:
> $ normalize-audio -n yourfile.wav
Note that the result is *not* the 'average RMS' level
but the maximum RMS over any 1 second period.
It's an indication of the maximum volume, not the
average one. If you just take the slice of one sec
that produced the maximum and replace the rest by
silence you get the same value.
Ciao,
1:56 p.m.
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:09:31AM +0100, Atte André
Jensen wrote:
In fact I think that's even more what I'd want. I'm trying to figure out
if I over-compress my audio, and to that end soft passages don't really
count...
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
becks wrote:
> $ normalize-audio -n yourfile.wav
Note that the result is *not* the 'average RMS' level
but the maximum RMS over any 1 second period.
4:09 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:56:08PM +0100, Atte André Jensen wrote:
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Depends on what you call 'over-compressing'. If you're
using heavy compression to squeeze out the last dB on
material that is already high level most of the time
you're right.
OTOH, compressing a classical piece from 40dB dynamic
range to just a few dB is certainly 'over-compressing'
to my taste, yet it would probably make little or no
differerence to the value measured by 'normalize -n'.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
Note that the result is *not* the 'average
RMS' level
but the maximum RMS over any 1 second period.
In fact I think that's even more what I'd want. I'm trying to figure out
if I over-compress my audio, and to that end soft passages don't really
count...
7:54 p.m.
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Depends on what you call 'over-compressing'.
I'm comparing this:
http://soundcloud.com/atte/til-kernen
http://atte.dk/tmp/til_kernen.png
With this:
http://soundcloud.com/atte/til-kernen-remastered
http://atte.dk/tmp/til_kernen_remastered.png
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
8:58 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:54:08PM +0100, Atte André Jensen wrote:
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
I recorded both into an Ardour session so I could
switch between them. AFAICS, the second can be
boosted by around 1.2 dB to have the same peak
levels as the first.
There are two things to consider here:
A. the level of the of the 'soft' piano parts,
B. the amount of compression used on the 'drums' parts.
For (B), I *absolutely* do prefer the second (less squeezed)
version. As for (A), both work, it would depend on where you
play this what is best.
But you can actually control them separately.
BTW, nice reverb on the piano, what is it ?
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
Depends on what you call
'over-compressing'.
I'm comparing this:
http://soundcloud.com/atte/til-kernen
http://atte.dk/tmp/til_kernen.png
With this:
http://soundcloud.com/atte/til-kernen-remastered
http://atte.dk/tmp/til_kernen_remastered.png 
8:22 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 20:05 +0100, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
OTOH, compressing a classical piece from 40dB dynamic
range to just a few dB is certainly 'over-compressing'
to my taste, yet it would probably make little or no
differerence to the value measured by 'normalize -n'.
Maybe what would be good is a thing that displays a histogram of dynamic
range, so you can see the spread of loudness in a sample.
Gordon MM0YEQ
9:05 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:22:17PM +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 20:05 +0100,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Yes, that could be very useful. And given the histogram
you could program an ad-hoc dynamics processor to tune
a recording into whatever is required.
That's just an example of something more general: non-RT
processing is much more powerfull than RT. That goes for
things like pitch correction as well.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
OTOH, compressing a classical piece from 40dB
dynamic
range to just a few dB is certainly 'over-compressing'
to my taste, yet it would probably make little or no
differerence to the value measured by 'normalize -n'.
Maybe what would be good is a thing that displays a histogram of dynamic
range, so you can see the spread of loudness in a sample.
5367
days inactive
5368
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Atte André Jensen -
becks -
Folderol -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Gordon JC Pearce