On mixing according to RMS level.

[camsr]

A thought crossed my mind the other day, and it was using an RMS meter to mix individual elements of a song. Since RMS value is supposed to be a general measure of the power, I think it would make much more sense to use it instead of a peak meter when mixing.

I measured a bassline in a song of mine I feel was pretty well mixed, and it averaged around -13.5 dB RMS. This seems like a good starting point for mixing the other elements as well. Using dfx RMS Buddy, a 0 db peak sine wave gives -3 dB RMS and a 0 dB square wave gives 0 db RMS. -13.5 might sound kind of low, but considering leaving 4.5 dB peak for dynamic range headroom, it's acceptable pre-master, mixing stage. Then the next element, the snare drum, is mixed in at -28 dB RMS with a -16db peak.

If you plan on mixing using RMS, or already do, also remember that to get that 'loudness' you hear in commercial recordings, it involves EQ and frequency shaping more than mixing. A snare drum at the same RMS value as a very clean sine bass will sound many times louder than the bass. So look at elements of the song, and their place in the spectrum. Mids are generally louder to the ear than highs and lows, especially around the 300-2000hz range. If you have an element that lives in that range, you will want a lower RMS value BEFORE any EQ and tone shaping occurs. Then lets say you want to accent the transient of that element, you can boost the high range a little and only slightly affect the RMS value, but increase the perceived loudness. Or if you come from the cut school of EQing, then do it all backwards.

Your peak meter is not obsolete, but it really is only good for measuring dynamic range. Other than that, since we all work in the digital domain, it's useless.

[A Greeno Beeno]

the RMS buddy is not suitable I found it very hard for mixing. other RMS meters? I did not like text readout I am use to my old graphical meter call me old fashion.

[EcHo2K]

psp vintage meter...it'a VU meter, set the latency to 600ms and the 0VU to arount -14db, it should work quite well, i don't know exactly it's something i wanted to try for my next mix

[Vervil]

Poor guys that had to mix songs before DAW's existed... They actually had to listen to the music and how instrument sounds alike in mix when setting levels instead of just watching channel meters... Now it is sooooo much easier

[Cordelia]

"Now it is sooooo much easier"
Hahaha
I rarely look at any meter while mixing, peak or RMS. When it comes time to render I use RMS Buddy (peak) to make sure I don't clip the master outs, that's it.

[camsr]

Of course you can always mix with your "ears" but I like to take a more scientific and quantitative approach to my work. Plus my speakers do not translate well so knowing how loud it's going to play between other systems is easier when I have a way to see how loud it might play elsewhere. I have about 4 systems at my disposal ranging from hi-fi, to dual-mono fullrange desktop speakers, and I listen to my mixes on all of them while holding that RMS value in my head. With enough practice, one can get an idea how their mixes will play on all speakers just by looking at a few numbers on the screen. That's a handy skill to have eh?

[Vervil]

At the end good result is what counts. Although I have pulled a joke because I have found your idea very "technical in approach". I mean, it sounds similiar like saying "I can easily make a good song just by following rules". I can't call myself very good at mixing but I understand some principles because my very good friend mixed something like three digits number of albums here. His approach to mixing is similar to composing... He listens to tracks in context of song, instruments in musical context etc. In one track something may be ok, in another rule should be broken. I am not sure if he could mix anything by looking at meters. I mean, if bass is pumping at -13,5 Db... What that means to you? Based on song, based on sound of bass itself it may be too much or burried in mix. Or is (sub)genre of music you are working on so much formula made in approach that you can just follow few general "spectral" and "sonic" rules and song mixes itself easily?
Also you say that your speakers do not translate so well and in next sentence you say you have 4 systems at your disposal. Does that means that all 4 systems you have are so unusable that you are not able to hear how mix will translate anywhere else even while using all of them?
I really don't get this.
If first post was just your concept of "double checking" your ears by using technical approach, then I can understand that, but it sounded like when mixing your primary concern is what your metters are telling you.

Cheers!

[camsr]

I have 4 systems (not even counting headphones) ranging from high quality to supercrap. As it turns out my production system is second from best. The hi-fi is hooked up to the TV and I need to burn to CD to play songs on it, which is time and disk consuming. My production studio has a pair of sealed 6" and 1.5" drivers but it does not deliver good mid-high range, plus bad room acoustics. Then I got this boom box sitting on the floor which delivers fairly good full range response, and then a set of dual mono computer speakers. What that means is I have enough to listen and decide how to compensate for listeners who may not be using good audio equipment, but still want to enjoy a song. It's most important when mixing, to first make sure all the main elements of the song, such as the bassline and the lead, and percussion, come thought 'somewhat' on even crappy systems. That's the meat of the music. And then for listeners with hi fidelity flat response systems, make sure that the mix is not overpowered in some element such as the bass. RMS is a direct measurement of power. And like I said before, the ear's response is not linear and flat. So when mixing, make sure the meat of your elements, such as the low and low-mids of the bass, the click and mids of percussion, and the mids and highs of the lead come through at the proper RMS value, and then you'll know how it will sound on another lesser or greater stereo. THEN you can cut or boost and toneshape the sound, but do it away from the fundamental of whatever element it is. We do not want to change the fundamental element level! This is how you can master before you master, and make better songs, for ALL!

[EcHo2K]

i can only say that i think that using VU meters together with peak meters can give you the real measure of the perception of the sound.
If the peak meters keep on peaking, while the VU meters are fixed that means that there is a lot of energy used in peaks that your ear is not going to hear since the VU moves in accord with the ear response and the peak with the voltage of your recorded track.
Ideally a peak on the peak meter should have an equal movement on the VU meter so that you are using your bits to fully create an audible signal, i don't know if i have explained myself...

[beej]

Hmm, I don't really regard the channel peak meters as a mixing tool.

They are an aid to recording and mixing, but only a help. Peak meters are necessary for avoiding overloads/clipping, which RMS meters can't do.

RMS meters will give you an average reading, but only for that element in isolation, which doesn't do much for when multiple tracks are mixing together (Hass effect etc).

In short, different meter-types have different functions and the appropriate one should be used for a particular task.

As for your mixing technique - well interesting approach, and if it works for you great. Try turning the speakers off and doing a mix, and seeing how good you can make it without hearing it, just by meters alone!

[camsr]

Yes echo you have a point there. The relationship between peak level and RMS level is a good indication of the magnitude of the signal. Untamed peaks can add a nice random quality to the sound, but can also take alot of headroom in the dynamic range. When those two levels move in proportion to each other, that's a good sign of a loud, powerful signal.

[camsr]

Hmm, I don't really regard the channel peak meters as a mixing tool.

They are an aid to recording and mixing, but only a help. Peak meters are necessary for avoiding overloads/clipping, which RMS meters can't do.

RMS meters will give you an average reading, but only for that element in isolation, which doesn't do much for when multiple tracks are mixing together (Hass effect etc).

In short, different meter-types have different functions and the appropriate one should be used for a particular task.

As for your mixing technique - well interesting approach, and if it works for you great. Try turning the speakers off and doing a mix, and seeing how good you can make it without hearing it, just by meters alone!

I will, no doubt when I get better and the right tool, I will

[camsr]

I just looked up Haas Effect, and it doesn't seem to relate to mixing because the amplitudes are the same? That seems more like a delay effect.

[beej]

The Haas effect is when one signal masks another. So you may have two different tracks playing at a similar volume, but because of the way the brain hears, rather than hearing the two equally, one masks another, because the frequency ranges overlap. A similar technique is used in mp3 compression for example.

What I'm simply saying is that there is more going on than just level when signals are mixed together, so you need to bear that in mind when mixing.

[camsr]

Well that's a little more advanced then what I was saying That's saying you won't hear a certain sound in the same frequency range as another element unless the element that comes after the sound is louder than the first?