This forum is for Audacity on Windows.It is looking like the ideal thing for me to do is to redesign the Compressor. Unfortunately, I have little programming experience (only JS, GAS and spreadsheets). With that, I must remember that I am but a beggar here and I should be thankful for people like you! I really do appreciate all the work you guys have put into this. You have enabled thousands (millions?) of people to do many great things. So anyway, maybe it is time for me to try to learn.If you wish to redesign the compressor
Yes, I understand it is an average. ...but 2 ms is even shorter than the 25 ms that I mentioned previously, which makes my proposal for full-range audio 12.5 times longer than the current arbitrary window.the intended use (of RMS) is to provide a measure of average signal level, not the short term level of part of the waveform.
That is an excellent question. This is where I could be wrong and the current algorithm could be better than my thinking, making all of my stink take up too much precious time from other people, including you.What is the advantage of using RMS for very short periods? Why not use peak?
The Peak function does not seem to do what I need it to do. It squashes everything, not letting transients through. I want transients above the low frequency cutoff to be allowed through, while at the same time getting lookahead action. Letting the transients through gives me more control over the crest factor. After doing the compression, I can look at the signal and adjust the crest factor by using the Fast Lookahead Limiter.
When compressing based upon Peak, no matter what, everything gets squashed based upon the loudest peak. No leading transients are allowed through. When based upon RMS, leading transients are allowed through if they are short enough, which is what I want. Again, I also get the "lookahead" action for the passages which have louder RMS amplitude.
Obviously, my idea for a formula could be flawed. There is a possibility that better formulas could be to not divide the period of the lowest frequency by 2, or even to multiply it by 2 (instead of cutting it in half, like I proposed). The formulas for these would be:
- Attack Time = (Hz^-1)
- Attack Time = (Hz^-1)*2
Yes, of course I am expecting the user to factor that in. I do not understand why someone would not factor that in, unless they choose an "automatic" Attack & Release setting. If people don't know what Attack Time to use, then they would benefit from either looking at a table of recommendations, or maybe the effect itself could list both the Attack Time and its associated "lowest recommended frequency", to aid users in making good choices.are you expecting the user to factor that in, or for the compressor to work that out somehow?