Volume Display: Percentage vs dBV

[caLRo]

Related Topic: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3313

I've recently switched from displaying volumes as percentages to dBV. Percentages seem to be much less common in other DAWs, and if they do have percentages, they are not displaying them by default.

Q1: What are the pros and cons between two?
Q2: Will future updates of LMMS include other ways of displaying volume?

I found these on our GitHub:
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1213
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1271

As a comparison, check out FL Studio's mixer and its way of displaying (metering) volume: https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... mixing.htm

[musikbear]

Q1: What are the pros and cons between two?
Q2: Will future updates of LMMS include other ways of displaying volume?

1: i believe its a q about following some guidelines where some 'guru dj' says "my kick is 5 dB over the average, in my buildups" ..so there How to mimic that in lmms..

2: that is not known to me.

..but Imo
Volume is a question of hearing + avoiding clipping. Sure there are some 'conventions' about di-dö-mehmah, but are they really that important?
Listen ! That will always be better than 'rules', and how should something new and exiting emerge, if everyone just went for settings from books?

[slipstick]

We already have the linear (percentage) and the logarithmic (dB) versions. How many more ways are there to display volume ?

Anyway isn't it just personal preference ? I find 150% more meaningful than +3.5dB but that may just be me .

Steve

[caLRo]

..but Imo
Volume is a question of hearing + avoiding clipping. Sure there are some 'conventions' about di-dö-mehmah, but are they really that important?
Listen ! That will always be better than 'rules', and how should something new and exiting emerge, if everyone just went for settings from books?

I get your point about not worrying too much about precise "textbook" volume adjustments. But I require some standard and reliable form of volume metering in addition to critical listening. What's the reason of LMMS using percentages per default instead of dBV?

The GUI of the FX-mixer seems to be designed with percentages in mind. That's biased. Shouldn't there also be an option to have the FX-mixer designed based on dBV? Or dBFS? In that case, the default fader position should not be in the middle, but closer to the top.

[StakeoutPunch]

There are a few things in LMMS that need to be fixed regarding the Mixer before showing volume in dB would really matter. For starters, the mixer shows the fader graphic in ~6 pixel chunks. If the sound level is "between" two of these chunks, the top chunk will toggle quickly. The Mixer's rendering would need to be more accurate (specifically to the pixel). This might also entail making the mixer taller to allow more pixels in the design. After that, the graphics would need to be accurately mapped to accurately show dB metering per rendered fader graphic. This is really one of LMMS's largest weaknesses and why a lot of people use other programs for final mastering.

Once the mixer shows dB level accurately, it would make more sense to show +-dBV on volume knobs as you would already have a reference point in the mixer.

[caLRo]

There are a few things in LMMS that need to be fixed regarding the Mixer before showing volume in dB would really matter. For starters, the mixer shows the fader graphic in ~6 pixel chunks. If the sound level is "between" two of these chunks, the top chunk will toggle quickly. The Mixer's rendering would need to be more accurate (specifically to the pixel). This might also entail making the mixer taller to allow more pixels in the design. After that, the graphics would need to be accurately mapped to accurately show dB metering per rendered fader graphic. This is really one of LMMS's largest weaknesses and why a lot of people use other programs for final mastering.

Once the mixer shows dB level accurately, it would make more sense to show +-dBV on volume knobs as you would already have a reference point in the mixer.

Thanks for explaining. So if I get it right, the reason why LMMS went with percentages was because graphic-wise it was impossible to implement accurate dB metering? Well, that begs the question why the GUI was designed as such in the first place.

[StakeoutPunch]

There are a few things in LMMS that need to be fixed regarding the Mixer before showing volume in dB would really matter. For starters, the mixer shows the fader graphic in ~6 pixel chunks. If the sound level is "between" two of these chunks, the top chunk will toggle quickly. The Mixer's rendering would need to be more accurate (specifically to the pixel). This might also entail making the mixer taller to allow more pixels in the design. After that, the graphics would need to be accurately mapped to accurately show dB metering per rendered fader graphic. This is really one of LMMS's largest weaknesses and why a lot of people use other programs for final mastering.

Once the mixer shows dB level accurately, it would make more sense to show +-dBV on volume knobs as you would already have a reference point in the mixer.

Thanks for explaining. So if I get it right, the reason why LMMS went with percentages was because graphic-wise it was impossible to implement accurate dB metering? Well, that begs the question why the GUI was designed as such in the first place.

I think that is not a great assessment. The reason for these problems and the lack of features is that LMMS is not developed in a timely, professional manner. As there are no paid developers, anyone that can code is invited to contribute, resulting in often needed but somewhat mediocre results. The development cycle has been very slow lately as there have not been enough people to work on the critical issues plaguing the bug tracker. Tres may stick his head in and offer a more detailed summary of the current status tracker-side.

So back to that first sentence, the mixer is not accurate because LMMS was not coded to be cutting edge featured, it was coded to just work. The mixer exists as it is now because it was a needed feature and the coding implementation worked, which was close enough (if you get what I mean). A lot of the core code in LMMS will need to be overhauled and redone to take LMMS much farther performance-wise.

As for the percentages, it made sense (and was likely easier) to whoever added it. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the mixer.

[brandystarbrite]

Interesting.

[miketurn1234]

I have a question regarding Mixer Volume Fader Percentages as well, so I guess I will add it here.

My initial intent for this observation was to build my case for getting longer mixer channel labels, but it has also evolved into a question.

First off, I am not exactly a professional mixer, which should be known if I am posting on an LMMS forum (not meant to be an insult, but you know what I mean).
The mixer faders all start in the middle at 100%, but above that you are allowed to go to 200%?
Maybe it is because the whole percentages thing is throwing me off, but in general when you have a mixer aren't the faders usually more at the top, because you usually wouldn't be going over 0db which I guess it represented by 100%?
Is being able to go to 200% overkill?

Hopefully what I am saying makes some kind of sense.
If anyone has any opinions they would like to share, please do so.
Thank You