Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Hi folks -
In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others. He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man, you should never normalize!" I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for advice). But I should have asked him why not. So I'm asking y'all: why not? Or should I take the middle road and apply sparingly? I tend to record solo singer/songwriters with guitar, so there's not a lot of background stuff going on with which I could hide problems. -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"jtougas" wrote in message
... In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others. He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man, you should never normalize!" I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for advice). But I should have asked him why not. So I'm asking y'all: why not? Because it does nothing to improve the sound. All it does is make something you haven't mixed down yet higher in level. So you'll set the fader lower than you would if you hadn't normalized. So what? The basic approach from the old days -- do as little as possible to your signal -- still applies. Peace, Paul |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:51:02 -0500, jtougas
wrote: In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others. He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man, you should never normalize!" I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for advice). But I should have asked him why not. So I'm asking y'all: why not? Or should I take the middle road and apply sparingly? I tend to record solo singer/songwriters with guitar, so there's not a lot of background stuff going on with which I could hide problems. Ideally, you'd have recorded at a level that didn't require normalising. But there's a lot of dynamic range in today's 24 bit audio files. You could probably mix with most of the faders in the bottom inch of their range with no perceptible quality loss. If it's more convenient to boost one track (by normalising, or with a channel gain control) it's not a disaster. What DOES it sound like? "A lot" of range isn't infinite range, of course :-) |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"jtougas" wrote in message
Hi folks - In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others. He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man, you should never normalize!" I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for advice). But I should have asked him why not. So I'm asking y'all: why not? The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical (not even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about managing complex relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only iron rule for setting levels. If the last thing you do to your music before distribution is to normalize it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and subjectivity. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:06:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical (not even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about managing complex relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only iron rule for setting levels. If the last thing you do to your music before distribution is to normalize it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and subjectivity. What about setting channel and bus faders so as to give a healthy output level? Do you retain "art and subjectivity", whatever that is, by pushing the output fader but lose it by normalising to the equivalent level? Anyway, he was asking about normalising individual channels. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:06:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical (not even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about managing complex relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only iron rule for setting levels. If the last thing you do to your music before distribution is to normalize it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and subjectivity. What about setting channel and bus faders so as to give a healthy output level? I put that kind of level-setting in the same category as getting the paint on the canvas, as opposed to the floor. Unless you are going to cut up the floor and sell it as art, there's a lot to be said for getting the paint on the canvas! ;-) Do you retain "art and subjectivity", whatever that is, by pushing the output fader but lose it by normalising to the equivalent level? I guess I did not convey my point well, which is that setting levels by ear has a lot more potential to involve art than arbitrarily setting peak levels to some predetermined fraction of some arbitrarily-chosen FS. Anyway, he was asking about normalising individual channels. The problem with slavish normalizaing is the arbitraryness and lack of subjectivity. BTW, this is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" situations. I ran afoul of this in my first cut at a CD of our church's choir concert with orgqan, brass and percussion. Because of the way the instruments were laid out, the recording sounds best-balanced with the peaks in one channel about 3.6 dB higher than the other. The first mixdown had peak levels that were forced to be more-or-less balanced. It didn't sound right. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
jtougas wrote:
In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others. He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man, you should never normalize!" So I'm asking y'all: why not? What normalizing does is locates the loudest point in the file (or segment or track, however you do it) and, if it's not already at the peak digital level (or whatever point you set if your program gives you that option), it calculates how far away from maximum level it is, and just adds that much gain to the whole file. In essence, it's the equivalent of turning up the playback volume without the listener having to touch a control on his player. Normalizing is often frowned upon by pseudo (and some real) "professionals," not because it does any damage, but because it shouldn't be necessary because you should have set the record level so that it reaches the desired playback level. The damage, if any, has already been done in the recording process, and you're not making anything any better by normalizing . . . except for one thing - the listener is insulated from your "mistake" and doesn't have to turn up the volume to hear it at at the same level as the last thing he listened to. There is, however, some validity to not normalizing to full scale (0 dBFS) on general principles. It has to do with the characteristics of the player. Many (in fact most) D/A converters increase their distortion in the last 1 dB or so before full scale. However, this is still a pretty small amount of distortion. If you're inexperienced enough so that you feel that it's necessary to normalize to get the playback level up to the point where it won't make the listener want to turn it up, there are probably worse problems with your recordings. So, in summary, it's better to do it right so that you aren't tempted to normalize, but if you missed the mark, most listeners would rather have a little more noise in the playback than get off the couch and adjust the volume control. It's kind of the poor-and-sloppy man's mastering. How effective normalizing is toward making a recording subjectively louder is a function of the difference between the peak level and the average level. If there's one drum hit that's just 1 dB below peak level, but everything else is 15 dB lower, you won't hear a significant volume change when you normalize, because all that will happen is that the overall level will ony be boosted by 1 dB. There are less simplistic ways of making a recording sound louder, by actually increasing the density, rather than just the peak level, of the recording. That's most often part of what's called "mastering" today. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:53:04 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote: However, normalizing is itself a free lunch, although some purists regret that a normalized CD lacks the suggestiveness of how relatively loud the various tracks of a compilation should be. You can normalise an album, not just normalise each track. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
Normalizing is essential for one step in CD production. Before the 24 bit or 32 bit files are dithered and downsampled to the CD 16/44 Redbook format, these files should be normalized. What follows has to be good! ;-) To fail to normalize means that some of the possible quality of the CD format is lost. Why care? The CD format has about 96 dB dynamic range, and there are simply no regular commercial recordings with even 80 dB dynamic range. 65-70 dB is about it for orchestral recordings, but a really clean studio recording of a small group might hit 75 dB on a really good day, with a great room, great musicians, great engineering, great equipment and a little good luck. If you do the math, and figure out the impact of putting a signal with 75 dB dynamic range through a channel with 85 dB dynamic range, you'll get the picture. It's like a tenth of a dB or less. Nothing audible! Oh yeah, 85 dB is the CD format arbitrarily degraded by me by 10 dB to make the point that it just isn't a practical problem. Some of the decisions involved inmaximizing CD resolution provokes agony for some engineers, because it can involve tradeoffs. Only if you are into self-inflicted agony for no audible purpose. There's plenty of potential agony in recording that *can* have audible benefits. Let me be the first to recommend it to you. ;-) However, normalizing is itself a free lunch, although some purists regret that a normalized CD lacks the suggestiveness of how relatively loud the various tracks of a compilation should be. Ignores the fact that normalization is about peak levels, which is only very loosly connected to the perception of loudness. If you want to estimate loudness, look at some kind of averaging, and by all means consider the power spectral density of the signal. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:4L2dndGw8YaChzvYnZ2dnUVZ_q-: The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical (not : even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about managing complex : relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic : characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only : iron rule for setting levels. : : If the last thing you do to your music before distribution is to normalize : it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and : subjectivity. I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the music before he normalized it since he had to normalize it not because he normalized it. peace dawg. : : |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
wrote in message nk.net "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:4L2dndGw8YaChzvYnZ2dnUVZ_q-: The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical (not even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about managing complex relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only iron rule for setting levels. If the last thing you do to your music before distribution is to normalize it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and subjectivity. I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the music before he normalized it since he had to normalize it not because he normalized it. No. The point is that you never have to normalize music. And there are times when leaving it as you mixed it is exactly the right thing to do. You can ampilfy both channels to exploit the dynamic range of the operational environment, which while netting out to being a similar process, is conceptually and practically a different thing. Or you can individually amplify or attenuate each file in a compendium, so that the perceived loudness of the files in a compendium meet a practical or an artistic need that relates to the whole compedium. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. : "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" : wrote in message : nk.net : "Arny Krueger" wrote in message : news:4L2dndGw8YaChzvYnZ2dnUVZ_q-: The problem with : normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical : (not : even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about : managing complex relationships in a subjective way. : Normalizing takes one simplistic characteristic of : music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only : iron rule for setting levels. : : If the last thing you do to your music before : distribution is to normalize it, you've probably ruined : it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and : subjectivity. : : : : I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the : music before he normalized it since he had to normalize : it not because he normalized it. : : No. The point is that you never have to normalize music. And there are : times when leaving it as you mixed it is exactly the right thing to do. : : You can ampilfy both channels to exploit the dynamic range of the : operational environment, which while netting out to being a similar process, : is conceptually and practically a different thing. : : Or you can individually amplify or attenuate each file in a compendium, so : that the perceived loudness of the files in a compendium meet a practical or : an artistic need that relates to the whole compedium. Slippery slope equating perceived loudness to peak voltage. They may be proportional sometimes but there are other parameters that better indicate perception of loudness than the max voltage hit over an arbitrary length of time. peace dawg : : |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:20:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the music before he normalized it since he had to normalize it not because he normalized it. No. The point is that you never have to normalize music. And there are times when leaving it as you mixed it is exactly the right thing to do. You can ampilfy both channels to exploit the dynamic range of the operational environment, which while netting out to being a similar process, is conceptually and practically a different thing. Or you can individually amplify or attenuate each file in a compendium, so that the perceived loudness of the files in a compendium meet a practical or an artistic need that relates to the whole compedium. I didn't know you were a Jesuit :-) |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Guys, go back and read the OP. He's recording multitrack and asking whether
he should normalize a couple of the tracks which weren't recorded at a high enough level. At least, that's how I read it. Peace, Paul |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Paul Stamler wrote:
Guys, go back and read the OP. He's recording multitrack and asking whether he should normalize a couple of the tracks which weren't recorded at a high enough level. At least, that's how I read it. I read it that he meant "tracks" as in tracks on a record, that is songs, or mixes. That's what a lot of people mean by "tracks." Remember when a recording program was called a "tracker?" Normalizing a track or tracks within a multitrack project wouldn't mean anything to someone who was hearing the final mix. It's really no different than turning up the level of that track in the mix, unless it was recorded at so low a level that it was beyond the range of the DAW virtual fader and he didn't know what "gain change" meant. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
I usually have to normalize some tracks when mixing music I didn't record.
I use this rules of thumb: First: I normalize only when I can gain a fair auount of dBs (8dB for me). I try not to look at peaks but at RMS. For example I remember a vocal track (I did not recorded it) where 99% of the time the level was around -18dB and in one point the singer yelled at -1dB. You don't want to normalize a track like that because you can only gain 0.8dB before digital clipping. In that case I sliced off the yell and then normalized the rest of the track. Second: normalize but keep a "headroom". If I am in a need to normalize I do it to -2dB. So you can put a digital eq. and you can boost frequencies without reducing the eq input gain. Third: I never normalize only one track of a stereo pair. It depends on the software but I do not want to mess up the stereo image playing with phases. Or at least it must be a choice of mine! F. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Paul Stamler wrote:
Guys, go back and read the OP. He's recording multitrack and asking whether he should normalize a couple of the tracks which weren't recorded at a high enough level. At least, that's how I read it. So the question for me becomes one of whether to use normalization on those tracks, keeping in mind that leaving adequate headroom, i.e. don't normailze to 0 dBFS, versus using a gain plug that is retweakable as one heads toward the final mixing. I might prefer to do the latter. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Soundhaspriority wrote:
With modern 32 bit DAW software, normalizing a track has no audible effect on the final mixdown, provided that you don't take the loudness of the normalized track as some kind of indicator as to how loud it should be in the mix. Which means that unless you allow adequate headroom during normalization, you are likely going to have to reduce the track's level at mix. I try not to let the DAW do anything unnecessary, and nevermind what 32 bit should or shouldn't do to the sound. Once I have a small pile of tracks being altered the sum of all those supposedly impreceptible actions may become obvious. Normalizing is essential for one step in CD production. Before the 24 bit or 32 bit files are dithered and downsampled to the CD 16/44 Redbook format, these files should be normalized. To fail to normalize means that some of the possible quality of the CD format is lost. You will not increase resolution of your original tracks by normalization. And further, normalization is no way to get song-to-song level compatiblity for a collection of songs. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... "hank alrich" wrote in message . .. Soundhaspriority wrote: With modern 32 bit DAW software, normalizing a track has no audible effect on the final mixdown, provided that you don't take the loudness of the normalized track as some kind of indicator as to how loud it should be in the mix. Which means that unless you allow adequate headroom during normalization, you are likely going to have to reduce the track's level at mix. I try not to let the DAW do anything unnecessary, and nevermind what 32 bit should or shouldn't do to the sound. Once I have a small pile of tracks being altered the sum of all those supposedly impreceptible actions may become obvious. I have only one example DAW program to draw on, Steinberg Cubase 4. Because of the 32 bit internal representation, it can't clip, even if every track is at 0 dB. The program has enormous internal headroom above 0. BTW, this is an advertised feature. In the case of 32 bit internal, the 24 bits of data are floating within a 32 bit mantissa, ie., an additional 8 bits, which are constantly kept in range by the floating exponent. The math is extremely clean. Nothing will happen to the signal in this representation. In other words... the Steinberg program has 'idiot-proofed' it's mix bus by failing to tell the truth with regard to gain staging ? |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:19:21 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote: I read it that he meant "tracks" as in tracks on a record, that is songs, or mixes. That's what a lot of people mean by "tracks." Remember when a recording program was called a "tracker?" Normalizing a track or tracks within a multitrack project wouldn't mean anything to someone who was hearing the final mix. It's really no different than turning up the level of that track in the mix, unless it was recorded at so low a level that it was beyond the range of the DAW virtual fader and he didn't know what "gain change" meant. I think not. "In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:41:32 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm wrote: In other words... the Steinberg program has 'idiot-proofed' it's mix bus by failing to tell the truth with regard to gain staging ? I suppose that's one way of saying "There's massive headroom" :-) |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Laurence Payne wrote:
I think not. normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others." Picky, picky. I don't know why I bother trying to figure out what people mean when there are others much more imaginative than I am. Who uses the terminology "channels in the tracks?" A mixer has channels. A recorder has tracks. You could boost (or normalize) a track in a channel, but not the other way around. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
hank alrich wrote:
So the question for me becomes one of whether to use normalization on those tracks, keeping in mind that leaving adequate headroom, i.e. don't normailze to 0 dBFS, versus using a gain plug that is retweakable as one heads toward the final mixing. I might prefer to do the latter. Perhaps he doesn't have the concept of adjusting levels in the mix quite down yet, and if something is too low, the thing to do is normalize it rather than move the fader. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Mike Rivers" skrev i melding news:QJpph.4218$Ul4.2483@trnddc05... jtougas wrote: There is, however, some validity to not normalizing to full scale (0 dBFS) on general principles. It has to do with the characteristics of the player. Many (in fact most) D/A converters increase their distortion in the last 1 dB or so before full scale. However, this is still a pretty small amount of distortion. If you're inexperienced enough so that you feel that it's necessary to normalize to get the playback level up to the point where it won't make the listener want to turn it up, there are probably worse problems with your recordings. As others have mentioned I can't see any reason to normalize individual tracks in a multi-track project. However; if the final mix has a peak-level some dB below 0 dBFS I can't see any reason not to normalize it. Most of us will record and mix in 24 bit which have more headroom then the final 16 bit CD, so normalizing the mix before dithering to 16 bit will make better use of the dynamic range on the final CD. Most people will normalize to 0 dBFS, but as Mike says there might be a good idea to stop at -1 dBFS (or maybe even -3) as normalizing to 0 might give a small amount of distortion in the CD-players DA-converter. For those interrested, you can read more about this in this paper: http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/ni...0_0dbfs_le.pdf |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:29:34 GMT, Mike Rivers
trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: Laurence Payne wrote: I think not. normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter than the others." Picky, picky. I don't know why I bother trying to figure out what people mean when there are others much more imaginative than I am. Who uses the terminology "channels in the tracks?" A mixer has channels. A recorder has tracks. You could boost (or normalize) a track in a channel, but not the other way around. I wanted to be careful since I knew that 'tracks' could "individual instruments recorded within a song" or "individual songs". Sorry for the nonstandard use. ;-) -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:30:46 GMT, Mike Rivers
trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: hank alrich wrote: So the question for me becomes one of whether to use normalization on those tracks, keeping in mind that leaving adequate headroom, i.e. don't normailze to 0 dBFS, versus using a gain plug that is retweakable as one heads toward the final mixing. I might prefer to do the latter. Perhaps he doesn't have the concept of adjusting levels in the mix quite down yet, and if something is too low, the thing to do is normalize it rather than move the fader. No, fine with the concept of moving the fader, just running out of space to move it up to... The short explanation is I recorded a tad too quietly a good take, that doesn't have a lot of background noise (its not perfect - the house isn't soundproofed - yet). -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:05:04 GMT, Mike Rivers
trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: There is, however, some validity to not normalizing to full scale (0 dBFS) on general principles. It has to do with the characteristics of the player. Many (in fact most) D/A converters increase their distortion in the last 1 dB or so before full scale. Before I posted, I read everything I've got saved on my laptop from this ng. After I posted, I went to Google and read the best responses from an older post, specifically Scott Dorsey's response. I feel better knowing the tracks I normalized I *didn't* normalize to 0db, but to -6db. But I still wish I'd gotten the levels right in the first place, dammit. -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Anders Svinndal wrote:
As others have mentioned I can't see any reason to normalize individual tracks in a multi-track project. However; if the final mix has a peak-level some dB below 0 dBFS I can't see any reason not to normalize it. Most of us will record and mix in 24 bit which have more headroom then the final 16 bit CD, so normalizing the mix before dithering to 16 bit will make better use of the dynamic range on the final CD. I would leave level maximizing to the mastering engineer. I would not put him/her in the position of having to reduce the level of my tracks to get them all to match nicely. I'd leave him headroom to work with. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
jtougas wrote:
No, fine with the concept of moving the fader, just running out of space to move it up to... The short explanation is I recorded a tad too quietly a good take, that doesn't have a lot of background noise (its not perfect - the house isn't soundproofed - yet). Don't normailze those tracks. Put a gain plug on each and tweak it until you put each track into a nice range for mixing. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Soundhaspriority wrote:
In the case of 32 bit internal, the 24 bits of data are floating within a 32 bit mantissa, ie., an additional 8 bits, which are constantly kept in range by the floating exponent. A 32 bit floating point has a 24 bit mantissa. But that's still plenty good. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"hank alrich" skrev i melding ... Anders Svinndal wrote: As others have mentioned I can't see any reason to normalize individual tracks in a multi-track project. However; if the final mix has a peak-level some dB below 0 dBFS I can't see any reason not to normalize it. Most of us will record and mix in 24 bit which have more headroom then the final 16 bit CD, so normalizing the mix before dithering to 16 bit will make better use of the dynamic range on the final CD. I would leave level maximizing to the mastering engineer. I would not put him/her in the position of having to reduce the level of my tracks to get them all to match nicely. I'd leave him headroom to work with. I totally agree on that! You should send the mixes to the mastering studio in 24 bit format. (Yes, I do recommend using a professional mastering studio.) All processing (eq, compressing, limiting, normalizing) should be done in this format. Than, as a last thing, they should dither to 16 bit. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Don't normailze those tracks. Put a gain plug on each and tweak it until you put each track into a nice range for mixing. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" Is there any difference? F. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Federico wrote:
Don't normailze those tracks. Put a gain plug on each and tweak it until you put each track into a nice range for mixing. ha Is there any difference? Only in the amount of control you have. Some DAWs have no options for normalization, they just do what we've all been assuming you did - jack up the gain until the highest level sample is at full scale. Others let you set the peak level so you can normalize to, say, -3 dBFS rather than full scale. Still others compute the RMS level of the segment you're normalizing and raise the overall level based on that. I'm not really sure how that works though, since unless it also applies some gain reduction on peaks (compression or limiting) this would suggest that peaks could reach digital clipping level. A "gain plug" (or the DAW's built-in gain control) lets you adjust the level selectively. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message news "David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in message news:wxvph.7027$%Q4.4867@trnddc06... In other words... the Steinberg program has 'idiot-proofed' it's mix bus by failing to tell the truth with regard to gain staging ? All the channel sliders can be pinned without overload. The output bus meters still have clip indicators. When a track is played, if a channel clips, one clears the clip indicator, and replays from before the clip. A clip does have audible consequences when monitored, because the 32 bit representation must be downconverted for soundcard output. If the channel plays all the way through without setting the clip indicator, it is "legal", meaning that it can be downsampled to a fixed point format. If a 32 However, the project can be saved at any time, or tracks exported as 32 bit float, without damage to the information. In other words, it lies to the user and creates bad habits with regard to proper gain structure. And who the hell wants to "pin" every channel "slider" ? Sorry... old school .02 cents worth. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Bad
-- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
David Morgan wrote:
Bad To the bone! -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Mike Rivers wrote:
Normalizing is often frowned upon by pseudo (and some real) "professionals," not because it does any damage, but because it shouldn't be necessary because you should have set the record level so that it reaches the desired playback level. The damage, if any, has already been done in the recording process, and you're not making anything any better by normalizing . . . The additional quantization caused by the gain change DOES damage the audio quality! The only time "normalization" can possibly buy you anything is in the final D to A conversion. Otherwise it only adds noise or distortion if you fail dither your gain change. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Bob Olhsson wrote: The additional quantization caused by the gain change DOES damage the audio quality! EVERYTHING changes the audio quality. If a gain change is necessary for aesthetic reasons (or perceived reasons) it does no more harm to make that change using the Normalize function than to do it by manual means, at least by the means that might be available to the casual user. The only time "normalization" can possibly buy you anything is in the final D to A conversion. Otherwise it only adds noise or distortion if you fail dither your gain change. It's possible that dithering is automatic when normalizing with some software. Generally when one finds the need to normalize, noise and distortion aren't of as great concern as perceived volume, or more likely, perceived meter readings or waveform graphic size. Hey, I don't condone liberal use of the Normalize button, but if you're going to make it loud and do it quickly, it gets the job done. There are better ways to gain in the loudness war but they're often out of reach, both technically and financially, from casual users. It's always best to do it right when recording so there's no need for normalizing. But we've come to encourage people to leave plenty of headroom when recording, so some people are making recordings that don't peak higher than -10 dBFS or so, and that's probably a good thing in the overall scheme of things. Working at 24 bit resolution (with the assumtion that proper dithering will be applied when they burn the CD that they pass around to their friends or send in for produdtion) there really isn't going to be a lot of harm done by adding 6 dB of gain, and they'll feel better about it. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Good Idea/Bad Idea - Normalizing?
Mike Rivers wrote:
EVERYTHING changes the audio quality. If a gain change is necessary for aesthetic reasons (or perceived reasons) it does no more harm to make that change using the Normalize function than to do it by manual means, at least by the means that might be available to the casual user. The key word here is "necessary." If you're just going to be changing the volume again in the final mix, normalizing only adds noise and/or distortion. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.audio.car FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (caution, this is HUGE) | Car Audio | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |