What analyzers do you need to judge if an effect inserted is perceived better because it's louder?

[Hans25]

I searched a lot for an answer to this question but most of the time the discussions are about how to make a track louder without clipping it etc.

It would be shameless of me to postulate that I have good mixing skills - I'm kind of a novice when it comes to mixing - depending a lot on EZmix. But I'm slowly beginning to experiment with different tools and effects on tracks.

In my novice mind I'm thinking that a good way to judge if an inserted effect is usable is to have to separate identical tracks one with the effect and one without. But to judge if the effect is contributing or not I would assume that the best way of judging would be to adjust the track with the effect so the gain/loudness/volume (I'm shameless enough to put an equal sign between these) is the same on both track.

If you use an effect that changes the whole spectrum or whatever you would call it the loudness can obviously not be identical but what would you do to come closest to a similar volume to judge if the effect really makes things better and not just louder?

Are there effects that can adjust the volume automatically for a track in a sequencer to another track? Or would you insert effects like Hornet ELM128 or a VU-meter like Hornet VU-meter and or a frequency analyzer like LP10 from DDMF?
http://www.hornetplugins.com/plugins/hornet-elm128/
http://www.hornetplugins.com/plugins/hornet-vu-meter/
http://www.ddmf.eu/product.php?id=1

Thanks a lot!

Edit: I also recognize that a track can sound louder even if it can't be seen on the meters:
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar12/ ... udness.htm

[RichieWitch]

I think the first step is to find a meter plugin you trust, one that displays both RMS and peak levels. I like using something with a fairly small GUI, a digital/bar readout, and the type that leaves a dwell marker at the peaks.

What I like to do it drop the meter plugin right after the FX plugin I'm trying to analyze. The idea is to engange/disengage the FX plugin, watching the meter plugin, and adjusting the output of the FX until the meter reads the same either way.

Once I get the levels to match, I can trust my ears to tell me what the FX plugin is really contributing to the sound.

I don't drop multiple copies of the meter plugin throughout my signal chain. Instead, as I get each FX plugin dialed in, I pick up the meter plugin and drag it along the chain, engaging and adjusting each FX plugin in the chain as I go.

I also use spectrum analyzers and stereo field displays, but those are for other parts of my workflow and I think they would make it more difficult to really see what the output difference is.

Hope that helps.

[Keith99]

there is a plugin specifically for this purpose called Perception

[Hans25]

Hope that helps.

Thanks for those suggestions. It seems like a reasonable way to do it. So what you do is bypassing the plugin and have the Meter just after it and check RMS and peaks at the same time. What I do which is probably not the best way is to duplicate the track without the effect and the have two meters from both tracks visible at the same time adjusting the one with the effect to the other one in volume.

[Hans25]

there is a plugin specifically for this purpose called Perception

It looks interesting - thanks for that. It seems like it's ment for mastering. SOS praises it but states that it's rather akward to use in a mixing situation, but that the developers are working on a mixing solution.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul14/a ... eption.htm

[stillshaded]

Hmm.. I just turn the output gain of the plugin down til it's the same apparent volume of the orig.. Isn't this the way to do it? Trust thine ears?

[Chandran]

This plugins are the answer! Both of them do the job very well.

http://www.meterplugs.com/perception

http://www.meldaproduction.com/plugins/ ... d=MCompare

[Keith99]

whole point is you cannot trust your ears I use Perception when mixing but it is true it takes a little bit to set up each time but still worth it especially when learning new plugins

[padillac]

whole point is you cannot trust your ears I use Perception when mixing but it is true it takes a little bit to set up each time but still worth it especially when learning new plugins

Not true.

You can't trust your ears to tell you which is better when they're at different volumes... but you can trust your ears to level match them and THEN decide which sounds better.

[RichieWitch]

You can't trust your ears to tell you which is better when they're at different volumes... but you can trust your ears to level match them and THEN decide which sounds better.

As a practical example, consider this....

If you take your average overdrive/saturation/limiter plugin--Single Mault comes to mind. Take a thin hi-hat sound and over-drive it to push more of it's sound wave upward, then clip the tops of the wave off. In this case, you're going to get more perceived volume and punch due to the frequencies on either side of the main frequency being boosted. In other words, the hi-hat fills more of the audio spectrum than it did and so it sounds louder when actually it's "broader".

Trying to level match that with your ears means you are going to take away the very effect you're trying to achieve. Yes, you should trust your ears in most situations, but when it comes to balancing levels changed by plugins, especially anything involving dynamics like compression, your ears will trick you.

[padillac]

You can't trust your ears to tell you which is better when they're at different volumes... but you can trust your ears to level match them and THEN decide which sounds better.

As a practical example, consider this....

If you take your average overdrive/saturation/limiter plugin--Single Mault comes to mind. Take a thin hi-hat sound and over-drive it to push more of it's sound wave upward, then clip the tops of the wave off. In this case, you're going to get more perceived volume and punch due to the frequencies on either side of the main frequency being boosted. In other words, the hi-hat fills more of the audio spectrum than it did and so it sounds louder when actually it's "broader".

So... turn it down, so it's at the same perceived volume? That's what we're doing here.

Trying to level match that with your ears means you are going to take away the very effect you're trying to achieve. Yes, you should trust your ears in most situations, but when it comes to balancing levels changed by plugins, especially anything involving dynamics like compression, your ears will trick you.

I don't buy it. If it sounds louder, it sounds louder. Simple. That's where your ears trick you. Why does it matter that it's "perceived" volume vs RMS volume?

If you match the hi-hats by meter, then by your own admission the saturated version will sound louder - and so will trick your ears into sounding like it's better, even though it may sound worse at the same perceived volume.

[Hans25]

This plugins are the answer! Both of them do the job very well.

http://www.meterplugs.com/perception

http://www.meldaproduction.com/plugins/ ... d=MCompare

Thanks!

Here is an interesting discussion between Meterplugs and Melda Productions defending each of their products:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product ... ching.html

[murnau]

This is an epic thread over there Hans. Regarding your question maybe you could also check this: http://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how ... udio-22494

[JCJR]

RMS metering uses a certain time constant to measure the results, and short percussive sounds such as the example hihat, or various bright hand percussion, would get a longer time envelope for each note if you raise gain to clip them. Unless the original sound has been brutally gated already.

So after you rms level balance the before and after on such sounds, the peak of the processed sound might be lower than the peak level of the original dry sound. In context of the mix, maybe the level matched clipped sound would be easier to hear in the mix on one hand, but the clipped sound may have less punch on the other hand.

Level matched solo comparisons might be useful in some cases. Maybe more useful comparing mixes rather than solo tracks?

If a processed individual instrument or track is easier or harder to hear in a mix compared to the original instrument or track-- Then the unprocessed sound would get a different amplitude slider setting in the mix, compared to the "best" channel amp slider setting for the processed sound, to get the best sounding mix.

So maybe in some cases, fx edits would be best evaluated in context with the entire mix, with before/after levels set to optimum level in the mix, rather than trying to compare level matched solo?

In good sounding dense mixes with lots of tracks, it isn't unusual to find that individual solo'd tracks can sound pretty bad taken out of context.

[Hans25]

This is an epic thread over there Hans. Regarding your question maybe you could also check this: http://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how ... udio-22494

Yes it is rather epic . Thanks for the link !

And by the way, This thread is turning into a discussion and I love it! Just as good as plugin-suggestions