"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

May I refer you to your original post, wherein you state for the record
that normalizing your raw files has created a means by which you
believe that you have overcome the limitations of encoding to MP3


A few days was spent puting you straight on what normalisation, peak, RMS,
avarage, clipping, compression, etc actual means, and well basis decibels
theory. Now you are delving into the science and fundamentals of perceptual
coding..

And then ascertaining that your use of the word "normalise" related purely
to the Linux command-line program which *apparently* can apply compression
to attain normalisation on an RMS basis without clipping. You continue to
use that term with quotes, which is not conducive to clear discussion.
Please call it "RMS-normalise-compress" or quote specify the application
each time ou refer to it, rather than just using quotes, for the benefit of
those who 'missed out' on the earlier earlier threads in r.a.t .

1 - No, CDs are not mastered with the intention of providing material
best-prepared for MP3 encoders who prefer high RMS average level.
2 - Yes, "louder is better", for you.
3- No, peak normalisation of a few dB has inaudible effect on resultant MP3
'frequencies'.
4 - Yes, RMS normalisation may have profound effects on resultant MP3s
5 - No, it has zilch to do with threshold levels of frequency bands.
6 - It has to do with the hyper-compression that you demand.

Hypercompression is the subject of a whole bunch of scorn because of the
blanding of music it has created over the last few years, but that's a
different thread.

geoff