I think we need more scale for mixer view volume meters. -24db isnt enough. I think -48db or more would be better. If you have signal of -30db, volume meter wont show any activity.
Is this thing hard to do?
Hope not…
Thats just visually. If you put the volume slider down, you get up to -INF db of course…
Yes, it is plain visual thing, but it would be more handy to actually see the lower signals too.
Am I only one who thinks this way?
Seriously, it would be major thing to see the -48db signals on mixer view.
Yeah, I agree. An important, yet pedestrian, use of the meters is simply as “activity monitors” to see if there’s a channel. For this, -24dB is sometimes too high of a threshold.
On a related note, it’d also be quite fantastic to be able to grab the resize/stretch the lower “fader” part of mixer panels to make the faders and meters taller. Maybe this would allow for “zooming” into a higher resolution of the meters as well as faders. Could be pretty handy for mixing.
Agree here too, with the monitor thing in mind.
Yes, -24dB is often too high. There could be a popup menu on VU meters, where you could select the sensitivity from a few most usable predefined values… Like in Acid and some similiar programs.
TNT is absolutely right. With 24-bit audio recording there’s so much headroom that you can safely record audio with your max level being anywhere from -18dB to -6dB. Many pros record with peaks at -12dB. This provides you with excellent sound quality and also means you don’t have to pull down all the volume faders on your individual tracks to prevent the master channel from distorting. The way the volume meters are currently scaled means that only the loudest bits of my individual channels are showing up on the track meters, and even then only on the very bottom. All of the detail is currently being focused on the 0 to -12dB range, and
aside from the most spartan of mixes (just a handful of channels), you’d normally only want to be paying attention to that range on the master fader.
Yeah this is a good idea.
A work around for the moment is to use the Sonalksis Free G plugin on each channel you want to monitor more accurately.
http://www.sonalksis.com/index.php?section_id=99
It is free (hence the name) and has a much bigger range, plus RMS level. Nice. I use this all the time
Being something of a metering geek, i’d love to see an extra large meter for the master track, with proper RMS measurement, customizable windowing, ballistics and offset.
Using the K-system levelmetering is awesome for managing levels in mixes.
As an example, when metering using K-14, it would require a +14dB offset, with an clipping limit of +14dB rather than 0. The “red zone” starts at +4dB and peak fall time should be around -12dB/s. RMS integration time should be 600ms.
Some good references on metering:
Dorrough Meters explained
Dorrough Meters
K-system Metering
Some good reference implementations:
Nugen Audio Visualizer
PPMulator
Agree that a greater visual range would be a plus!
I’ve added 3 choices (via a context menu) for the mixer meters and the master meter on top of the interface now:
-24dB -> 0dB
-48dB -> 0dB
-96dB -> 0dB
They all clip at 0dB because thats the upper limit of the master and normal tracks (when assigned to a separate hardware channel in the mixer). Any more ranges which should be added to the list?
Does each range require a fixed table of values inside Renoise? Why not add an arbritrary input field with a range up (or actually down) to max -96dB?
Its not required, but it makes things a lot easier for now.
Given the described problem, I think that’s a fair solution, although I agree with Vvoois that a user definiable range would be more flexible.
I don’t really care as I don’t look at those levels anyway. I subscribe to the theory that your ears are the best judge! 
the total dynamic range of Renoise samples should be 144 dB (24 integer bits), I think…?
If ever another range should be added, maybe -144 → 0 is the one (assuming 144 is the correct range)
Full 32bit float resolution is 192dB. In practice it would be a little less, but hey, thats really overkill.
Maybe someone requires this to deafen elephants.
You rock man!
I think for most of us -96db is really enough. No need to add more ranges.
I’m very glad with the -96 range because I always had this in wavelab.
I think to get a good visual impression of your channels behavour this should be enough. great feature!