What's the steps do deal with a big difference between Peak and RMS?

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
deeplink
Posts: 315
Joined: 08 Jul 2020
Location: Dubai

Post 14 Apr 2021

Some of the Dr Rex Loops and Devices (like Rthmik) often crack the Peak so high, with little happening in terms of RMS.

How should you go about solving this issue?

User avatar
motuscott
Posts: 2310
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: the New York

Post 14 Apr 2021

Watusi, Tango, Foxtrot @yer cervix

simply could not help myself...
apologies all around
The Now Sound of MIDI Thru 🧂

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3286
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 14 Apr 2021

what’s the issue? mix to get them sounding good, and don’t clip the output.

metering is for informational purposes, and to help fix leveling related problems. if there’s no articulable problem that needs fixing, there’s no need to be concerned about the levels.

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 1938
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Colombia

Post 14 Apr 2021

It would be an issue if your song was having a too big of a peak to RMS ratio. But it is a rex loop... Are you planning on releasing a rex loop?

Anyway, soft clipping will help you reduce the gap there, deeplink.
Perpetual license holder

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9150
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 14 Apr 2021

deeplink wrote: ↑
14 Apr 2021
Some of the Dr Rex Loops and Devices (like Rthmik) often crack the Peak so high, with little happening in terms of RMS.

How should you go about solving this issue?
First, it's a choice not an issue to be solved! But seriously, there's nothing wrong with dynamics/high crest factor, as long as it matches the other tracks in your productions. It's when one track is super compressed/loud and another is super dynamic that it's difficult to get them to gel in most cases - the exception being if you don't actually want the tracks to gel but instead are looking for the contrast.

But to answer your question, "how to increase/decrease crest factor effectively" is one of the key questions to learn to answer when improving your mix skills IMO. Many approaches will work, more of the time you combine multiple approaches to get the best result.

Possible approaches:
•Obviously, clipping is the brute force method to reduce the peaks relative to the average, but you can only do so much before it becomes audible and changes the feel/tone (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your preference).
•Next up is limiting, another option that produces obvious results by bringing down the peaks to be closer to the average level.
•IMO, equally useful to limiting is upwards compression, which gives the same results as limiting but does so by bringing up the average level to match the highest peak.
•Next I would say is saturation, specifically parallel saturation (so you don't loose the feel/tone of the original) because you can easily increase average level without affecting peaks AND it can make things sounds louder because of the extra harmonics (just keep it subtle if you want the effect "felt" rather than "heard").
•Other possible options are adding short room type reverb to increase the average signal level, or even try a delay/echo effect which can work in some cases.

But again, and most importantly IMO, it's the combination of things that tend to produce the most flexible results, like saturating a limited or upwards compressed parallel signal, or adding room reverb to a saturated signal, or even using all of the above in small amounts.

It's different every time IMO, the "trick" that worked so well last time doesn't always work the next time you try it. So stay flexible and practice developing a wide palette of "solutions" so you are able to "solve" any possible issues! :)
Selig Audio, LLC

deeplink
Posts: 315
Joined: 08 Jul 2020
Location: Dubai

Post 15 Apr 2021

selig wrote: ↑
14 Apr 2021

Possible approaches....

Thank you for detailed response Selig.

With regards to clipping, I assume this refers to soft clipping. It's a pity the Mclass Maximizer doesnt have a threshold setting, but I think I can 'make' one using a combinator and two instances of the Maximiser - where one of the Rotary's dial up the input again and get soft clipped, while inversely turning down the input again on the following maximiser.

I can also introduce a button to turn on Limiting - which should work in the same way.
However, with my experience with the Limiter - you need to enable soft clipping anyway others some of the transient still bleeds through. Is this a normal behavior of modern limiters?

Is there anyway to create upwards compression using stock devices?

Which stock device is best to use to create Parallel Saturation? Pulveriser? Scream4?
I find Scream4 behaves weirdly when using it in parallel.

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 1938
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Colombia

Post 15 Apr 2021

deeplink wrote: ↑
15 Apr 2021
selig wrote: ↑
14 Apr 2021

Possible approaches....

Thank you for detailed response Selig.

With regards to clipping, I assume this refers to soft clipping. It's a pity the Mclass Maximizer doesnt have a threshold setting, but I think I can 'make' one using a combinator and two instances of the Maximiser - where one of the Rotary's dial up the input again and get soft clipped, while inversely turning down the input again on the following maximiser.

I can also introduce a button to turn on Limiting - which should work in the same way.
However, with my experience with the Limiter - you need to enable soft clipping anyway others some of the transient still bleeds through. Is this a normal behavior of modern limiters?

Is there anyway to create upwards compression using stock devices?

Which stock device is best to use to create Parallel Saturation? Pulveriser? Scream4?
I find Scream4 behaves weirdly when using it in parallel.
The 2 instances of the Mclass maximiser with one gaining up and the other gaining down is on every mix I do. I've noticed that any signal above around 8 - 10 on the device meter will start acting, but not before it so gaining it up is necessary. However keep in mind that posing the gain up on one and pulling it down by the same amount does not result in equal loudness after processing. If that's something that matters to you, I think there's a difference of up to 2 dBs.

Using saturation as an insert will be more helpful in taming the transients, though you can definitely raise the RMS when used in parallel.

You could also use a hard clipper btw, I think there's a free hard clipping Re from forgotten clank in the shop?

Scream 4 has some modes which introduce latency if I'm not mistaken which would explain why it does not work well in parallel...
Perpetual license holder

User avatar
Quarmat
Posts: 32
Joined: 11 Feb 2021
Location: Europe

Post 15 Apr 2021

I am particularly interested to know if there are answers to this question.

deeplink wrote: ↑
15 Apr 2021

Is there anyway to create upwards compression using stock devices?

Also, would any of you be kind enough to share a combi patch of the two interconnected limiters mentioned above?

Thanks!

Interesting read!

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9150
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 15 Apr 2021

deeplink wrote: ↑
15 Apr 2021
selig wrote: ↑
14 Apr 2021

Possible approaches....

Thank you for detailed response Selig.

With regards to clipping, I assume this refers to soft clipping. It's a pity the Mclass Maximizer doesnt have a threshold setting, but I think I can 'make' one using a combinator and two instances of the Maximiser - where one of the Rotary's dial up the input again and get soft clipped, while inversely turning down the input again on the following maximiser.

I can also introduce a button to turn on Limiting - which should work in the same way.
However, with my experience with the Limiter - you need to enable soft clipping anyway others some of the transient still bleeds through. Is this a normal behavior of modern limiters?

Is there anyway to create upwards compression using stock devices?

Which stock device is best to use to create Parallel Saturation? Pulveriser? Scream4?
I find Scream4 behaves weirdly when using it in parallel.
Maximizer's threshold is set just below clipping/0 dBFS. It's "expecting" to see mix levels rather than channel levels, so even if you boost the input all the way up and feed it a signal that peaks around -12 dBFS you'll still not get any actual limiting/gain reduction.

I don't often want limiting anywhere but on the master, but I've built a simple combinator to adjust to "channel" levels. This (of course) uses a Selig Gain before the limiter and a Selig Gain after the limiter, with a single Combi knob that controls both Gains with the first/input going up and the second/output Gain going down equally but opposite. The result with the Limiter bypassed should be no gain change at any setting, with the second Selig Gain perfectly offsetting the first. But anything patched between the two Gains (works great for super-overdriving distortion devices) "sees" a hotter input level. Doing it this way allows you to use the Maximizer as you always use it, without needing to adjust input/output, and gives you twice the range (24 dB). A simple cable between the fader CV IN/OUT on the back panel increase this range to 72 dB (make sure to do the same patch to both Gain devices), which is great for creative uses!

BTW, here's a quick rundown of the way the Maximizer handles levels, which may be useful:
Selig Audio, LLC

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest