Audacity Forum

Just got a new plug-in and now I can get my RMS way up (or down) -- in other words, louder. Previously I was lucky if I could get as loud as -20 RMS-A (RMS Average using the wave stat analyzer, stats.ny plug-in). So now I finished a song at about -17 RMS-A and it was pretty loud compared to others online -- so what is a good RMS A-average value? A value to fit in with other songs, as it seems most are a similar value /loudness. Thanks..Ron.

I did a Googl search and found this, here, on this site, from 2013:

Some of the technical detail is a little bit "out", for example:
"There should be exactly 500ms (0.5 seconds) at the head of each file"
The start time of an MP3 file is not "exact" due to limitations of the format - what they mean here is "There should be very close to 500ms (0.5 seconds) at the head of each file".
Also:
"Your submitted files should measure between -23dB and -18dB RMS"
This specification is incomplete as they do not state the RMS "weighting" or "window size". In practice the exact definition probably does not matter too much - I assume that they are just trying to give an indication that the recording should be "reasonably" loud without pushing the loudness too much - the compression / limiting steps that they describe are likely to be close enough to the right ball park figure. Comparing your recording with some of their published recordings will immediately show you if your recordings are too loud or too quiet. There are also some plug-ins that can give you an RMS and peak amplitude figure for your recording such as the "Stats" plug-in available here: viewtopic.php?p=99454#p99454

http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic ... 35#p212435

So I guess this answers my question. Although as far as

"Your submitted files should measure between -23dB and -18dB RMS"

Yes I too wonder if thats the first value RMS or the second "weighted.." given by the Audacity wave stats analyzer?

Black Dog Bluez wrote:I did a Googl search and found this, here, on this site, from 2013:

That was referring to voice recordings for audiobooks, not for music.

A-Weighted RMS was intended for measuring low level noise, such as the background hiss created by electronic components in audio circuits. It's not a particularly good match for assessing "loudness" for music at normal listening levels. C-weighted or k-weighted would be better for that (though I know they are not yet available in the "stats" tool).

For music, there really aren't any set standards, until it gets to the radio/TV station (then it gets hit by the broadcast standards).
There has been a strong trend over the last 50 years or so for commercial recordings to be made increasingly loud. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war). Happily there seems to now be elements of rebellion as "dynamic range" shows signs of becoming fashionable again, at least with some genres of music.

Thanks Steve, but I seem to get good use from the wave stat tool (stats.ny), with music (or talk). But will look at the RMS value now as opposed to the RMS weighted value as I was before, to set some kind of standard, if only for my own songs, to keep them of similar loudness.

In an research, I shifted down all three of my files and decreased all of their RMS principles from around -20dBFS to -16dBFS, using the 'Gain' device in ProTools. In doing this the waveforms efficiently had an RMS value of -16dBFS however, they all then had a optimum outcome obtain of 0dBFS. Looking at the waveforms it seems as if some areas had connected, but there is no distortions obvious in the site files. Does anyone know what is occurring here? I have connected an image to this line.

kimberlysanchez wrote:In an research, I shifted down all three of my files and decreased all of their RMS principles from around -20dBFS to -16dBFS, using the 'Gain' device in ProTools. In doing this the waveforms efficiently had an RMS value of -16dBFS however, they all then had a optimum outcome obtain of 0dBFS. Looking at the waveforms it seems as if some areas had connected, but there is no distortions obvious in the site files. Does anyone know what is occurring here? I have connected an image to this line.

--Not sure what level of a 'producer' you are but just in case you didn't know : Decreasing an RMS value like from -20 to -16 is increasing the volume (i.e., loudness, gain, decibels). And going as high as you describe (visually) is probably clipping. Audacity has an option to show clipping in red lines or you can turn it off. If you're viewing in Audacity you may have the "show clipping" option off. I don't know, just a guess. I personally try to keep things (amplification wise) no higher than -0.1 dB from clipping --although some say you should keep it at least -1dB below--I'm not clear on that, and with my poor recording equipment, I need all the volume I can get. I've examined professionally done music (albeit ripped from my CD to a wave file) that was at 0dB's. [Above zero decibels is clipping]

steve wrote:A-Weighted RMS was intended for measuring low level noise, such as the background hiss created by electronic components in audio circuits. It's not a particularly good match for assessing "loudness" for music at normal listening levels. C-weighted or k-weighted would be better for that (though I know they are not yet available in the "stats" tool).

Found this plug-in (through Audacity Downloads-Plug-ins): "DFX RMS Buddy v1.1" --so far much better than stats.ny for measuring RMS. Just started tinkering with it so will see.. but to use you just highlight a track, regardless of length! And then open it from the effects menu and click "OK" and it takes a few seconds doing it's thing and then it exits. Now pull it back up/out from the effects menu and it has the reading on it. Kind of awkward but simple and hopefully acurate--Seems to be so far. Here is the link: http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/DFXRMSBuddy/

It's also interesting to view professionally done songs and their varying values.

Black Dog Bluez wrote: --so far much better than stats.ny for measuring RMS

Is that just because it doesn't have the 30 second limitation, or are there other advantages?
Do the RMS measurements agree with stats.ny?

steve wrote:

Black Dog Bluez wrote: --so far much better than stats.ny for measuring RMS

Is that just because it doesn't have the 30 second limitation, or are there other advantages?
Do the RMS measurements agree with stats.ny?

I haven't thought to test them on equal par --per a same 30 second sample. Will do ASAP. But yes, I like the ability to check the whole song as opposed to being limited by a 30 second sample maximum. The only other feature I've noticed the RMSBuddy has is it gives the peak readout as well, how many decibels under 0. There's also a window with a "LOAD" and "SAVE," that I'm not sure what they do. Just thought what that might be...maybe it saves a particular RMS so you can apply it without having to do the math to come up with the correct "Amplification" effect setting needed to set a particular RMS value. That would be great, I guess that would make it an RMS normalizer as well. I failed to read any description that came with this plug-in describing what the LOAD feature's for...will report back ASAP.

UPDATE: I've not been able to get any functionality out of the RMS Buddy's "Presets," "LOAD" or "SAVE" features and have no idea what they are for! When I downloaded this plug-in effect it came with a file about copy rights and a file showing a small brief description of it's functionality that never mentions the presets, load, and save features.

Black Dog Bluez wrote: I haven't thought to test them on equal par --per a same 30 second sample. Will do ASAP.

Please do, I'd be very interested.

Black Dog Bluez wrote: I like the ability to check the whole song as opposed to being limited by a 30 second sample maximum.

A bit of background: I wrote stats.ny for a specific project that only required short term analysis, and it was easiest (and quickest) to write it for short term analysis only. Since then, there have been a few requests for longer analysis, so I've written that (...somewhere). I'll be busy with gigs over the next couple of days, but will hunt it down and post it next week (please post me a reminder if I forget )

The new version also has C-weighting.

Black Dog Bluez wrote:The only other feature I've noticed the RMSBuddy has is it gives the peak readout as well, how many decibels under 0.

I thought that was in stats.ny. If not, it's easy to add.