|
|
|
03-17-2015, 10:17 PM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
any way to find the peak really fast?
So I'm doing this country western tune with just my tele and vocal. I don't want to do any mastering, brickwall limiting, etc. because it sounds fine, as is.
I want to render it at maximum volume without clipping. Is there a way to quickly find the peak without having to render it once?
I realize full speed rendering is pretty fast, and gives a good idea. But is there a way that would take 2 or 3 seconds? Just a quick scan without actually rendering?
I've wondered about this before, and thought i'd ask to find out.
Thanks in advance..
Last edited by msea; 03-17-2015 at 10:22 PM.
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 10:22 PM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,571
|
item properties, normalize.
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 10:28 PM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicSounds
item properties, normalize.
|
Thanks, I got two tracks (split from the original live stereo recording). I don't want to normalize them cos both are pretty close to max, and mixed perfectly right now. They are each going thru different fx. I just don't want to add any fx to the master track while rendering.
I tried some compression and brickwall limiting on the master track and found it sounds best as is. Sort of an "unplugged" sound.
|
|
|
03-17-2015, 10:49 PM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicSounds
item properties, normalize.
|
Oh I see. You meant render the track low and then normalize it. The reason I didn't want to do that is that I'd have to render the normalized track again, and I thought that might change or possibly degrade the sound a bit.
Anyhow, I got it to -0.4 db, which is fine by me. Was just wondering if there is a very quick way to determine the peak of a multi-track project, before rendering. Like in a second or two. Then you could adjust the master level accordingly.
|
|
|
03-18-2015, 12:15 AM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,571
|
the normalize button in item properties will move the item volume up to 0dBFS absolute peak. If it moves at all it will tell you what the peak was. Fader moves to +12.2 then the peak was -12.8
The single highest peak doesn't really determine what sounds loud or quiet but that that's what you asked for.
For a multitrack project it's less possible. You'll have to either play the song through once and watch the meter or do a render and note the peak there.
Best option is to set a limiter to ceiling of -1 and bump the input gain a little.
The peak is almost the least important part of loudness. Just increasing the peak doesn't degrade the sound. Increasing the RMS level or perceived loudness will.
If you don't want to do a lot of processing, or look at meters then you'll at least have to listen to similar tracks and match the levels.
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 01:27 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Thanks I get it. Reason I thought rendering a normalized file might change it a bit is because I have had strange results with the null test in the past. Renders that i thought would be the same came out different. Perhaps it was the nature of the VSTi or VST. Someone, maybe planetnine, explained it to me before. Some reverbs are a bit different each time through. I think that was it.
Much appreciated.
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 06:19 AM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,015
|
Use the action "SWS: Analyze and display item peaks and RMS" to find out levels of the currently selected item.
I don't recommend using normalize at all. It just adds another dsp calculation with rounding errors to the file and forces you to reduce levels again afterwards to get to the right mixing level. Besides this, it takes away the headroom required by some plugins resulting in lower sonic quality of their processed signal.
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 08:30 AM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Silver City, NM
Posts: 526
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicAxiom
Use the action "SWS: Analyze and display item peaks and RMS" to find out levels of the currently selected item.
I don't recommend using normalize at all. It just adds another dsp calculation with rounding errors to the file and forces you to reduce levels again afterwards to get to the right mixing level. Besides this, it takes away the headroom required by some plugins resulting in lower sonic quality of their processed signal.
|
Is reducing the levels by adjusting the item properties or adjusting the volume on the track the same type of calculation as normalizing?
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 09:17 AM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicAxiom
Use the action "SWS: Analyze and display item peaks and RMS" to find out levels of the currently selected item.
|
It would be nice if you could select all items and do that. I'll give it a try. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicAxiom
I don't recommend using normalize at all. It just adds another dsp calculation with rounding errors to the file and forces you to reduce levels again afterwards to get to the right mixing level. Besides this, it takes away the headroom required by some plugins resulting in lower sonic quality of their processed signal.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgraph
Is reducing the levels by adjusting the item properties or adjusting the volume on the track the same type of calculation as normalizing?
|
These are the finer points that I have wondered about (actually, never thought about volume adjustments per se). I guess it would take a math whiz to know just how audible these subtle shifts are. Or maybe they wouldn't even know, considering no two sets of ears are the same.
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 10:35 AM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,571
|
Normalizing (through item properties) is non destructive in reaper it just changes the item volume. I didn't say render. Just use it to calculate the peak and set the item volume.
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 10:39 AM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by msea
These are the finer points that I have wondered about (actually, never thought about volume adjustments per se). I guess it would take a math whiz to know just how audible these subtle shifts are. Or maybe they wouldn't even know, considering no two sets of ears are the same.
|
You can test it my changing the volume knob, IOW, this is not something I think anyone here needs to lose any sleep over since it is simply increasing the volume proportionally like any other volume operation would.
I have an action that gives RMS and Peak but it doesn't show the position of the peak which might be a cool addition. For your original question, I'd normalize then back it off a notch. Wait, all you want is the maximum peak... let me find the action for you.
Here ya go...
SWS: Analyze and display item peak and RMS
The only issue is it is per item not the master; sorry for the ramble.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
Last edited by karbomusic; 03-20-2015 at 11:06 AM.
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 01:30 PM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,015
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgraph
Is reducing the levels by adjusting the item properties or adjusting the volume on the track the same type of calculation as normalizing?
|
Digital level calculations are dead simple multiplications: fader set to -6.02 dB: take sample no. 1 entering that fader and multiply it with 0.5; take sample no. 2 and multiply it with 0.5, etc.. Next example: Fader set to 0 dB: take all samples running into that fader and multiply them with 1. Fader set to -inf.: multiply every sample with 0. You get the idea. Normalizing, mute button, panning - in fact any linear digital gain change works the same way.
If you want to route a signal somewhere with its full level (to a bus, etc.), you would preferably set the send fader to exactly 0 dB to make the undelaying multiplication as simple as possible (make the digital fader chose the factor of 1) to really get a pure digital clone of your signal to the destination. Setting the fader to "appr. 0 dB" instead (let's say -0.1 dB) invokes the somewhat "complex" multiplication of all input samples being multiplied with the factor of 10^(-0.1/20) which is 0.98855309465693884029 (rounded).
Obviously, this calculation will be likely to introduce more rounding error than the multiplication with a simple factor like 2 or 10 or 0.2. As repetitive rounding errors like this and recurring re-quatization are the weakest parts in the digital audio concept and add up over the course through the daw, there should be the ambition to avoid them.
Thus, what you wanna do is keeping redundant, unnecessary dsp calculations at a minimum to preserve as much of the original digital audio resolution as possible in a file.
On the other hand, floating point architecture of digital audio processing yields an enormous dynamic range. But you can never be 100 % sure that there isn't a fixed point plugin somewhere in your project that spoils that virtually infinite headroom by causing clipping and/or rounding errors.
@karbo: you're absolutely right. I missed that the mentioned SWS action cannot be used to measure the peak level of the master signal. So what we need would be simply a pre-master-fader level scanning action :-)
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 08:00 PM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicAxiom
So what we need would be simply a pre-master-fader level scanning action :-)
|
Precisely what I was getting at!
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 08:01 PM
|
#14
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicAxiom
Thus, what you wanna do is keeping redundant, unnecessary dsp calculations at a minimum to preserve as much of the original digital audio resolution as possible in a file.
|
Very interesting, thank you.
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 08:02 PM
|
#15
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic
The only issue is it is per item not the master; sorry for the ramble.
|
Hey man, ramblin's okay with me. I was born a ramblin man!
|
|
|
03-20-2015, 09:33 PM
|
#16
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 231
|
A visual indicator on the timeline of where peaks are would be nice in the individual track on top of the audio file....
|
|
|
03-21-2015, 02:04 AM
|
#17
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,926
|
Didn't someone write a script to scan for peaks and place a marker there?
>
|
|
|
03-21-2015, 02:31 AM
|
#18
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by msea
Precisely what I was getting at!
|
Sure, but in order to tell you the peak value that the mix will reach, it will need to render everything ... which will take the same amount of time as you just rendering it unless it's constantly rendering and re-rendering in the background as you tweak the mix (bit of a resource killer!).
Last edited by timlloyd; 03-21-2015 at 02:36 AM.
|
|
|
03-29-2015, 10:41 AM
|
#19
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd
Sure, but in order to tell you the peak value that the mix will reach, it will need to render everything ... which will take the same amount of time as you just rendering it unless it's constantly rendering and re-rendering in the background as you tweak the mix (bit of a resource killer!).
|
Yeah, I can see that. I guess I was just searching for pie in the sky. Or maybe intuiting something in the future...
Take, for example, how the US Gov can spy on all our cellphone calls without listening to what we say. Was thinking that some kind of meta-info might be possible. But again, I don't really see it with sound data.
|
|
|
03-29-2015, 11:36 AM
|
#20
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
|
There is a SWS Label processor. In the menu Extensions>Label processor.
You can quickly run that so that it renames the items with the peak value, make note of the peaks, then hit Ctrl-Z.
|
|
|
05-26-2015, 09:01 PM
|
#21
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod
There is a SWS Label processor. In the menu Extensions>Label processor.
You can quickly run that so that it renames the items with the peak value, make note of the peaks, then hit Ctrl-Z.
|
Thanks I'll try that!
|
|
|
05-27-2015, 02:53 AM
|
#22
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 371
|
The quickest way I can think of is to render the project at lowest quality/fastest setting, make a note of the peak, and adjust master fader accordingly before re-rendering at high quality. I leave the filename as is and overwrite the test file.
|
|
|
05-27-2015, 03:01 AM
|
#23
|
Scribe
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Van Diemen's Land
Posts: 12,168
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by unique
A visual indicator on the timeline of where peaks are would be nice in the individual track on top of the audio file....
|
Yes, Sonar used to have (and I expect still has) a nifty option to place a little peak marker flag on each track. Playing it back for the first time you get a rather cute little army of marching flags.
Be nice to have something like that ....
|
|
|
05-27-2015, 07:04 AM
|
#24
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 151
|
hi,
there is an old 32 bit plugin called Blue Cat's Digital Peak Meter:
http://www.bluecataudio.com/Products...ct_DPeakMeter/
put this in your Master and record envelope R and L: set the Master to write and you see in the Automation where the higest peak is.
i highly recomend to use the MSI Download. On a win 7 only the dlls in the vst directory wont work correct. (if that happen just open your reaper-vstplugins(64) and remove the 2 Dlls, and run the msi)
|
|
|
05-27-2015, 09:20 PM
|
#25
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dub.matze
hi,
there is an old 32 bit plugin called Blue Cat's Digital Peak Meter:
http://www.bluecataudio.com/Products...ct_DPeakMeter/
put this in your Master and record envelope R and L: set the Master to write and you see in the Automation where the higest peak is.
i highly recomend to use the MSI Download. On a win 7 only the dlls in the vst directory wont work correct. (if that happen just open your reaper-vstplugins(64) and remove the 2 Dlls, and run the msi)
|
That looks cool. I'm going to try that too. I tried out some Blue Cat stuff when I was just beginning. I mean REALLY just beginning. So I don't know how they hold up to other plugins.
|
|
|
05-31-2015, 07:47 AM
|
#26
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod
There is a SWS Label processor. In the menu Extensions>Label processor.
You can quickly run that so that it renames the items with the peak value, make note of the peaks, then hit Ctrl-Z.
|
Tod, I got around to downloading the SWS extension last nite. Was just about to instal it but then wondered two things -
- if i don't like it, can i completely uninstall, or is it all entangled in reaper?
- does it signif. increase loading time?
I just got a clean install of Windows, machine is lean and humming away nicely. So I'm a bit paranoid about installing anything more than i abs. have to.
|
|
|
05-31-2015, 01:49 PM
|
#27
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by msea
Tod, I got around to downloading the SWS extension last nite. Was just about to instal it but then wondered two things -
- if i don't like it, can i completely uninstall, or is it all entangled in reaper?
- does it signif. increase loading time?
|
Actually I'm not sure how that works, I've never wanted to go backwards with SWS. I think all you have to do is reinstall your original version of SWS over it, but I don't know that for sure.
However, I don't think it adds to the loading time, at least not in any significant way. I think it's the number of VST or other plugins that is the main culprit with that.
I also just got a new computer, and when I got my VST folders setup properly, Reaper loads very quickly.
|
|
|
05-31-2015, 02:42 PM
|
#28
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,358
|
sws can find the first occurance of a peak in an item
SWS: Move cursor to item peak sample
Maybe it comes handy if this is combined
with a "insert marker at position (select right)"
and maybe split item
in a custom action with an appropriate keyboardshortcut.
Running this on a copy of the itemtrack to check
(you can delete the copy afterwards)
you are left with a set of markers
Consider that FadeOuts will create senseless markers
|
|
|
05-31-2015, 05:31 PM
|
#29
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod
Actually I'm not sure how that works, I've never wanted to go backwards with SWS. I think all you have to do is reinstall your original version of SWS over it, but I don't know that for sure.
However, I don't think it adds to the loading time, at least not in any significant way. I think it's the number of VST or other plugins that is the main culprit with that.
I also just got a new computer, and when I got my VST folders setup properly, Reaper loads very quickly.
|
Thanks Tod. I think it's just a matter of time before I take the plunge with sws. I feel like a perrenial newbie, and any new thing always meets with resistance. Then when I get into it, I look back and say... " why was I such a wimp? So conservative?"
Do you mean setting up folders in reaper or right on your hard drive? I'm always checking out freebies and tend to dump them all into c:/vst. And yeah, ur right, it's getting slower cos of that.
|
|
|
05-31-2015, 05:39 PM
|
#30
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobobo
sws can find the first occurance of a peak in an item
SWS: Move cursor to item peak sample
Maybe it comes handy if this is combined
with a "insert marker at position (select right)"
and maybe split item
in a custom action with an appropriate keyboardshortcut.
Running this on a copy of the itemtrack to check
(you can delete the copy afterwards)
you are left with a set of markers
Consider that FadeOuts will create senseless markers
|
Thanks... Pls read my other post.
|
|
|
06-02-2015, 04:38 AM
|
#31
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,358
|
..
yes yes .. only a peakfinder for items .. but somehow on topic when looking at the .. ehm .. topic
|
|
|
06-02-2015, 06:39 PM
|
#32
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod
I also just got a new computer, and when I got my VST folders setup properly, Reaper loads very quickly.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by msea
Do you mean setting up folders in reaper or right on your hard drive? I'm always checking out freebies and tend to dump them all into c:/vst. And yeah, ur right, it's getting slower cos of that.
|
I'm talking about folders on the hard drive. I've got separate folders for my 32-bit VST which go in (C:\Program Files (86)) and my 64-bit VST which go in (C:\Program Files).
I actually never use Reaper 32 bit anymore, there's just no reason for it.
Consequently, I only need 64-bit VSTs, however there are a couple 32-bit VSTs that I still need, so I set them up in a separate VST folder. By using just the folder with these two 32-bit files along with the folder that has my 64-bit files, my loading time is less than 2 second, it's almost instant.
Before I cut down on the 32 bit VST files, it could take up to 10 seconds.
|
|
|
06-03-2015, 06:25 AM
|
#33
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
|
Thanks Tod. I have a subfolder for 64bit plugins too. The majority of mine are 32bit, mostly cos I am using the 32bit host and like the way the presets and UI are all in one window.
I suppose I should try the 64bit reaper. I never gave it too much thought (just read about it again at the reaper blog, and understand it better this time around). Now that I'm getting more serious about music production, the extra ram could be useful. My system has 8 gb ram... There's no reason not to use it.
Thanks for mentioning this. I probably would have stumbled on in the dark without reading up about it. Soooo much to learn with this stuff. Fun though...
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 AM.
|