I think he's got them labeled bass-ackwards, but we get the point. I only use the meters to make sure my starting point is low enough to leave headroom, and periodically check that I am not clipping anything, though if I do, I usually hear it before I see it. Mix with thy ears sir, eyes are great for painting, but lousy at hearing.

Firstly I think the OP should do some research and reading up on rms and peak values. A good simple start might be here: 

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/rms.html 

The OP values are wrong as peak values are higher than rms values. But you have to realise there is quite a difference between peak/rms relationships of a continuous sine wave compared to a musical event such as an acoustic guitar pluck. With the guitar pluck, new strings, heavy pick etc there are two parts to the sound. The first is the attack transient part of the sound and it usually happens first followed by some sort of sustained part. 

Another thing to add to the confusion is that in audio engineering we are using a standard where the very peaks of the continuous part of the waveform are actually considered as the rms value not the point 3 db down from that.

So now start thinking with the pluck sound the highest part of the transient at the start may reach a value and it may be -4dB FS but then after that the sustained potion of the sound may settle around -14 dB FS for a much longer period. In musical terms the peak value could be said to be -4 but the rms part of the sound may be considered to be around -14. (In DAW terms that is)

In musical terms you cannot think about the rms being .707 x peak as it is in electrical engineering because it does not apply so much that way. In music it is more about the acoutsic guitar pluck I have just mentioned.

Start thinking about whether any part of a sound over time is either peak or rms orientated. Very percussive sounds have a high peak value but are very quick over time and they have little or no sustained portion so we can think of them has having a low or no rms value. But someone singing AAHH however will have a relative low peak value that might only equal the same value as the longer sustained value eg rms part of the sound.  And a sound can have quite a high peak transient level followed by a lower average or rms level or sustained part level.

Most DAW meters are useless at effectively measuring the sustained part of the signal. And Sonars meters show true rms value and are 3 dB lower than the standard making it harder.

You need VU meters (either real or VST) to effectively measure rms levels. The ballistics of the meter also play an important part in terms of what they respond to and show. You also need a VU meters to respond and show you a 0dBu reading on the VU meter itself while working at the chosen digital reference. Something most DAW's (except Studio One) cannot do.

A system should be used such as the K System to keep  rms levels on tracks and busses even and consistent. You do not worry about the peaks so much. They take care of themselves and vary depending on the sound as to how much higher they are than the rms or sustained values. But as the headroom is built in you don't have to worry about them. This is far superior to the approach of not taking notice at all of what your meters are telling you or by reading too much into peak metering. 

VU (rms) is not a perfect loudness indicator but it the best one around and far superior to peak readings. And overall it is very effective. I have mastered many CD's and used rms readings as an indicator regularly and they have turned out very even and consistent so yes VU and rms readings do work. (the only thing you have to do in mastering is change the overall rms reading for a track that might only have voice and one instrument) 

Our ears are much more rms trained and as we did in the analog days we worked with rms all the time. Most DAW's favour the peak indicators and approach but it is possible to incorporate both very effectively. It is just that most DAW's leave out all forms of effective rms or VU indicators but you can easily put them back in.

This is GREAT Everyone!!!

Yes I apologize, they were labeled back-asswards.  I think everyone knew what they were looking at though.

As Mike stated, " recognize some patterns that match what you already know through experience and or intuition about balancing the levels of a mix. "  So true for me being fairly new to actually watching whats going on as I try to make what I think Im hearing sound like what I want it to.


All the info on the actual RMS and Peaks compared along with the waves and perceived loudness is WONDERFUL.  I had a hard time understanding that part and from what is already here has made understanding it a piece of cake.


Ill be studying and burning this into my brain Even though I still bring level to a point by sound and making sure no clipping is going on, but would like to verify all is well by meters as well to make sure Im not over or under somewhere I shouldnt be and know when to add to or take away on the crest factor.


Thanks SO MUCH


Look forward to continued input on this thread.

BTW  Sorry I was out all day and took so long to get back to read all this  

I put the drums and bass into their own buss on occasion. Since for me, they are the foundation to the music I tend to set them first and mix everything else relative to them. 

By putting them into a sub buss, I can run them up or down as needed without changing the relationship between them. 

A side note too... if you are struggling with a mix and getting certain things to the right level..... try doing it backwards..... instead of bringing things UP in the mix.... take everything else down. 

Assuming you don't have the levels turned down too low.... there is nothing wrong with having none of the meters touching the red. And there is also nothing wrong with the occasional track blinking red..... 

Digi Mike (gotta address the right Mike lol)

I think it's great you're getting into this stuff. Between bit and Jeff, I even picked up a few things here. As you may or may not know, I usually stay away from the science oriented parts of audio. Anything that has to do with intense understanding just isn't for me. Some of it is a downfall for me I'm sure, but I'm sort of like that country Dr. that can pretty much do anything due to the experience of doing it without the scientific end. My dr's office is dirty, my tools are primative, I can't tell you the history of the bleeding patient but I'll stop you from dying and save your @ss every time. LOL!

That's been my approach to meters, the K system, RMS etc. I'm in the Herb camp on this. I look at a meter to record....I like to keep things at -6dB going in...I look at my meters while mixing and keep them out of the red with my master bus showing an LED peak of -3 dB and I export when I like what I hear.

When I master something....it's funny...by the time I get done doing my entire procedure by hand manually, my numbers end up right where they need to be without trying. I can master a song, look at the number read-out (min/max samples, RMS min/max/average etc) and tell you what the threshold the limiter I'm about to use will end up at before I add it. LOL!! I don't even need to listen to it after (yet I always do hahaha) I can just put it on and I know that my RMS levels on a final will end up at -10 to -7 max with an average of -11 to - 14 dB at all times...which is my opinion, is beautiful for rock/metal and pop. 

But during a recording, I never think about this stuff for a second. As a matter of fact, I don't even think about it at the mastering stage. I master things until the sound good, but have a clue on what good and bad numbers will do to the sound. There are times when a client expects to hear a certain loudness...so I'll worry about stuff like that when asked, but most times I stay away from those types of jobs because I really want no parts of degrading music.

Anyway, the reason for my post here....like I said, it's great you're getting into this stuff and have the patience to learn. Just don't allow this stuff to dictate your decisions unless you see a series of numbers that set off an alarm that the audio may be degraded because of them. That's when you need to worry.

Also, keep in mind some programs may be inaccurate in how they read these numbers so make sure you have a few different sources to try. For example, I use Wave Lab 6 here....and the analysis is a little extreme where if I use other editors that do the same thing, the RMS numbers look way different. Wave Lab always seems to make things more extreme than they really are. It will show me a -4 RMS reading as a max value where Studio 1, Adobe, Sound Forge and others will show me -7 or -8 dB max RMS.

To me, Wave Lab would be the more trusted source here coming out of the gate....but then I learned that some of the read-outs as well as the meters are a little goofy in that version. So make sure you get a few different takes and try not to make too many decisions based on any type of number or graph read-out. The information is always an absolute plus to have under your belt, but nothing tops what your ears tell you...and I know you know that already. :)

-Danny

Utimately, the only thing you actually NEED the meters for is to insure you aren't clipping. That's really it. Given that 0dBVU on your analog input chain should bring you in somewhere in the -18 to -14dBFS range on average, you for the most part shouldn't even have to worry much about clipping for the most part.

Otherwise, use your ears and make it sound right. And this isn't an anti-science stance. I'm all over science as anyone who has heard me rant on would know. But there's not much actual benefit to getting overly 'numbery' about this particular aspect of the process. Just set up a calbrated monitoring system for a specific master buss level (somewhere around -14dBFS is generally fine), make sure your master bus is hitting around that level at the loudest parts, and then use your ears to decide when it's got the right balance between compression and punch.

Of course these days most people put that balance at all compression and no punch, but that's a different argument.

WOW I think Im getting a hold of this.

Thanks Danny and Dean

I messed with a song Im working on today and have really grasped the concept or thought of what I think my confusion/lack of knowledge is on exactly what Dave and Jeff explained.  Ive gotten better control of the crests, the initial transient attacks and the sustained part of the transients. Im noticing Im getting the perceived volumes up while still maintaining a good dynamic/attacks, separation and presence on each piece without squashing and making everything sound similar for a lack of words. 

Its an entire different/new learning curve compared to mixing live sound and getting it to where Im happy with what I hear on the monitors or cans.

Thanks again everyone!!!


I forgot to mention this is all part of my OCD issues of needing to understand what Im seeing along with what Im doing/hearing  I like to know that hen I hear something not quite right I can find and understand with my eyes as well