I've been using the following to control the output volume of a channel from my MIDI faders:
[ctlin 7 1] (in from faderbox) | [* 0.787402] (scale 0-127 to 0-100) | [dbtorms] | [pack 0 50] | [*~] (multiplied by sound from channel)
I know that this is the "mathematically" correct way to do decibels to RMS, but it doesn't sound right. The bottom 2/3rds of the slider are almost silent, then the sound comes in very loud at the top. What other kind of setup are people using to control gain?
d.
Hi Derek
Probably not the best solution, but to my ears, it sounds good to scale the input to 0-1 and then square it.
cheers dafydd
On 2/18/07, Derek Holzer derek@umatic.nl wrote:
I've been using the following to control the output volume of a channel from my MIDI faders:
[ctlin 7 1] (in from faderbox) | [* 0.787402] (scale 0-127 to 0-100) | [dbtorms] | [pack 0 50] | [*~] (multiplied by sound from channel)
I know that this is the "mathematically" correct way to do decibels to RMS, but it doesn't sound right. The bottom 2/3rds of the slider are almost silent, then the sound comes in very loud at the top. What other kind of setup are people using to control gain?
d.
-- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ---Oblique Strategy # 172: "Use `unqualified' people"
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
hi derek,
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 23:51 +0100, Derek Holzer wrote:
I've been using the following to control the output volume of a channel from my MIDI faders:
[ctlin 7 1] (in from faderbox) | [* 0.787402] (scale 0-127 to 0-100) | [dbtorms] | [pack 0 50] | [*~] (multiplied by sound from channel)
I know that this is the "mathematically" correct way to do decibels to RMS, but it doesn't sound right. The bottom 2/3rds of the slider are almost silent, then the sound comes in very loud at the top. What other kind of setup are people using to control gain?
well, i guess, this is mathematically correct, if complete silence would start at db ;) i usually scale the midi range 1 to 127 from the lowest audible sound to the loudest i want to produce, which works pretty good for my ears, except the fact, that 7 bit are just too little for an accurate volume control (at least for my ears).
cheers .. tim
-- tim@klingt.org ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww! Jack Kerouac
Tim Blechmann wrote:
except the fact, that 7 bit are just too little for an accurate volume control (at least for my ears).
Yeah, I know. 7 bits are not enough. But I don't understand what you mean by:
i usually scale the midi range 1 to 127 from the lowest audible sound to the loudest i want to produce, which works pretty good for my ears,
What range are you scaling to?
d.
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 00:21 +0100, Derek Holzer wrote:
i usually scale the midi range 1 to 127 from the lowest audible
sound to
the loudest i want to produce, which works pretty good for my ears,
What range are you scaling to?
0 -> 0 1 -> a sound, that's barely audible 127 -> the loudest sound
i can't tell you exact values, since this is dependent on the kind of sound, that i'm using ... if you have a pink noise, at low volume, it may have the same energy as a 4kHz sine wave, and you hear the sine, but don't hear the noise, as it's easier hidden in the background soundscape of your studio / concert room / etc ... so, i'm just scaling to the range of my ears ;)
cheers .. tim
-- tim@klingt.org ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius
OK, I guess it's not such a systematic answer as I would hope for ;-)
I'll go back to fiddling with my sliders now. d.
Tim Blechmann wrote:
0 -> 0 1 -> a sound, that's barely audible 127 -> the loudest sound
i can't tell you exact values, since this is dependent on the kind of sound, that i'm using ... if you have a pink noise, at low volume, it may have the same energy as a 4kHz sine wave, and you hear the sine, but don't hear the noise, as it's easier hidden in the background soundscape of your studio / concert room / etc ... so, i'm just scaling to the range of my ears ;)
I want to point interested people to the great iem abstraction [fadtorms] and [fadtodb], in the cvs abstractions. I am using them everytime i touch a (physical) fader.
lg,P
Derek Holzer wrote:
OK, I guess it's not such a systematic answer as I would hope for ;-)
I'll go back to fiddling with my sliders now. d.
Tim Blechmann wrote:
0 -> 0 1 -> a sound, that's barely audible 127 -> the loudest sound
i can't tell you exact values, since this is dependent on the kind of sound, that i'm using ... if you have a pink noise, at low volume, it may have the same energy as a 4kHz sine wave, and you hear the sine, but don't hear the noise, as it's easier hidden in the background soundscape of your studio / concert room / etc ... so, i'm just scaling to the range of my ears ;)
What's the trick to get "double-accuracy" from your MIDI controls again? A second channel some number of channels above the first, right?
Does anyone know if this works for the UC-33 Evolution controller?
Tim Blechmann wrote:
except the fact, that 7 bit are just too little for an accurate volume control (at least for my ears).
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 00:23 +0100, Derek Holzer wrote:
What's the trick to get "double-accuracy" from your MIDI controls again? A second channel some number of channels above the first, right?
Does anyone know if this works for the UC-33 Evolution controller?
afaict, the uc-33 doesn't have 14-bit fader. at least mine, which is about 2 years old, doesn't :/
cheers ... tim
-- tim@klingt.org ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
Just what the hell is the experimental tradition? Morton Feldman
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 00:23 +0100, Derek Holzer wrote:
What's the trick to get "double-accuracy" from your MIDI controls again? A second channel some number of channels above the first, right?
The trick is to use NRPN (Non-registered parameter numbers) to encode 14-bit data using MIDI. The 'mccallum abstractions' are your friend to decode the resulting data stream.
http://www.mentalfloss.ca/sintheta/html/downloads.html
Of course, this all depends on whether your hardware supports the 14-bit ouput. I know the Behringer BCF2000 does...
HTH,
Jamie
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:18:20AM +0100, Tim Blechmann wrote:
the loudest i want to produce, which works pretty good for my ears, except the fact, that 7 bit are just too little for an accurate volume control (at least for my ears).
But how great is that digital jumping sound you get from moving the slider too fast as Pd catches up with all the midi messages![1] 8bit tunes are so passé. 7bit ftw! ;)
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
hi derek
as Dafydd mentioned it, i use also a 'squared' scale. it is somehow in the middle of the both extremes 'linear' and 'logarithmic'. linear is a pain, when trying to adjust the volume in the low level area, whereas the 'logarithmic' scale is too accurate in that area. i'd say 'mathematically' correct is, what makes sense for your ears, since all scales are 'mathematically' correct, but different. i remember, that miller pucket posted once, that he uses {0-1}^4 (square of a square).
roman
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 23:51 +0100, Derek Holzer wrote:
I've been using the following to control the output volume of a channel from my MIDI faders:
[ctlin 7 1] (in from faderbox) | [* 0.787402] (scale 0-127 to 0-100) | [dbtorms] | [pack 0 50] | [*~] (multiplied by sound from channel)
I know that this is the "mathematically" correct way to do decibels to RMS, but it doesn't sound right. The bottom 2/3rds of the slider are almost silent, then the sound comes in very loud at the top. What other kind of setup are people using to control gain?
d.
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Hi Roman and Dafydd,
squared scale seems to work for what I'm using it for right now. Thanks for the suggestion. If it still needs some tuning, maybe I'll try the squared-square.
squarely yours, d.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi derek
as Dafydd mentioned it, i use also a 'squared' scale. it is somehow in the middle of the both extremes 'linear' and 'logarithmic'. linear is a pain, when trying to adjust the volume in the low level area, whereas the 'logarithmic' scale is too accurate in that area. i'd say 'mathematically' correct is, what makes sense for your ears, since all scales are 'mathematically' correct, but different. i remember, that miller pucket posted once, that he uses {0-1}^4 (square of a square).
-
Chris McCormick -
Dafydd Hughes -
Derek Holzer -
Jamie Bullock -
Peter Plessas -
Roman Haefeli -
Tim Blechmann