Bob Cain wrote:

Except that it is not the use of the word that is standard across the
recording industry. Clipping is what happens when you boost the
level without regard to what happens to the peaks. They get
"clipped" off flat at 0 dB full scale.

Yes, thank you. As of earlier today I have now correctly adopted this
term to describe that phenomenon.

Normalization is boosting the level by the amount that will bring the
the highest peak in the region or the file to 0 dB full scale.

OK, I've been using the term "normalization" to describe *everything* I
do with the "normalize" application. I was not aware that the term
"normalization" applies *only* to when you bring the highest peak to
0dB. That's what the application does to a WAV *by default* with no
additional, custom level or gain adjustment specifications.

There should be a standard term for increasing the gain while
applying a 0 dB full scale limit but there isn't that I've ever seen.

How about "over-normalization" (for lack of anything better)?

So when I opt to "over-normalize" the level of a WAV to my preferred
"2dB hotter" setting than what the application would do by default, I am
no longer "normalizing" the WAV but doing something else to it instead
which really doesn't have a name. Hmmm...

Limiting is compression operation which changes the dynamics. The
level is not changed but instead the peaks are held below a limit by
a process of applying negative gain by an amount that's a function of
the momentary signal level so as to keep the peaks below a given
limit without clipping them off. If it is too aggressive it will
introduce audible harmonic and intermodulation distortion. Following
that you can increase the level by the amount of the limit to
normalize.

So if, by definition, "limiting" requires no change in level - and only
offers peak suppression at some artificial threshold, wouldn't this
"over-normalization" thing that I've been doing just be called
"compression" since it is a combination of "boosting the level" while
the "clip all peaks at 0dB" rule?

I've seen "wrapping" used.

OK, so is "wrapping" the officially factory-authorized industry standard
term that's used to describe that effect?

I had previously been calling *that* effect "clipping" because when you
hear it it kinda makes a harsh, audible "clipping noise"! I thought
"clipping" was in reference to the sound that "wrapping" makes, not to
the process of flattening the peaks at 0dB.

You don't see that much any more.

It doesn't seem to have much use even as a rude sound effect.

I'm surprised Audacity retains it.

My wife asked me today what possible purpose it could serve - and I
could not provide an answer.

It can speed the performance of increasing the level though by
eliminating the need for an overflow check in the multiplication loop
but few DAW's still have that option.

Yeah, maybe that could have been useful in the stone age but not any longer.

It could* be useful if you just want to do a quick test to see roughly
how many peaks are gonna get clipped if you do a certain experimental
thing with your WAV. Then if you don't like that result you could
"undo" and try again repeatedly until you get it way you want it.

Maybe?

Myke