Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.
For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking at
about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs by about
+4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds, actually).
Is there a program that will give me the actual volume stats on a
large group of files, just just I don't have to do them, one at a time.
By the way, these are all mono files.
I used to have a free program on my old computer that zipped through and
then listed all the audio levels in a group of files, but I don't recall
the name of the program. It would seem to me that Wavlab should be able
to do this, but I haven't figured out how to do it. I'll appreciate any
suggestions.
al

On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:25:38 GMT, Alan Cassaro
wrote:

Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.
For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking at
about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs by about
+4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds, actually).
Is there a program that will give me the actual volume stats on a
large group of files, just just I don't have to do them, one at a time.
By the way, these are all mono files.
I used to have a free program on my old computer that zipped through and
then listed all the audio levels in a group of files, but I don't recall
the name of the program. It would seem to me that Wavlab should be able
to do this, but I haven't figured out how to do it. I'll appreciate any
suggestions.
al

Al,

There is already a program that does this automatically for mp3's,
called mp3 gain:

http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

There has been a standard proposed for this with wav files too, but
appears it hasn't been implemented yet:

http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/...ormat_wav.html

Maybe this information is out of date as you seem to have already been
able to do this in the past.

Julian

MP3 gain sounds like one of the programs I used to have, but right now I'm
working strictly with WAV files for a pro CD project. As I recall an old
program I had, it would scan all of my wav files, then give a readout of what
all the volume levels were, and then I could go on to doing a average
listening volume adjust as the next stage, if I so desired. I do use Volume
Balancer also, but it only works on stereo files, and mine are mono. But
Volume Balancer doesn't let me know what the volume levels are.
al

Julian wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:25:38 GMT, Alan Cassaro
wrote:

Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.
For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking at
about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs by about
+4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds, actually).
Is there a program that will give me the actual volume stats on a
large group of files, just just I don't have to do them, one at a time.
By the way, these are all mono files.
I used to have a free program on my old computer that zipped through and
then listed all the audio levels in a group of files, but I don't recall
the name of the program. It would seem to me that Wavlab should be able
to do this, but I haven't figured out how to do it. I'll appreciate any
suggestions.
al

Al,

There is already a program that does this automatically for mp3's,
called mp3 gain:

http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

There has been a standard proposed for this with wav files too, but
appears it hasn't been implemented yet:

http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/...ormat_wav.html

Maybe this information is out of date as you seem to have already been
able to do this in the past.

Julian

On Tue, 30 May 2006 00:39:59 GMT, Alan Cassaro
wrote:

MP3 gain sounds like one of the programs I used to have, but right now I'm
working strictly with WAV files for a pro CD project. As I recall an old
program I had, it would scan all of my wav files, then give a readout of what
all the volume levels were, and then I could go on to doing a average
listening volume adjust as the next stage, if I so desired.

If you remember what that other program was, please let me know.

Julian

Maybe you could use Magix Music Studio deLuxe. (see at www.magix.com)

It has a batch mode built in, where you simple select the source files
and the effects. Maybe "independant normalize to -1,5dB" could be a
good solution.

It is part of the Samplitude / Sequioa family, sharing the basic sound
machine so it does sound good as well. I use Samplitude myself in
classical on-site recording and is very happy with that.

Check out
www.magix.com

Wavelab does this...it's right in the manual under meta-normalising.

In article ,
says...

Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.
For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking at
about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs by about
+4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds, actually).
Is there a program that will give me the actual volume stats on a
large group of files, just just I don't have to do them, one at a time.
By the way, these are all mono files.
I used to have a free program on my old computer that zipped through and
then listed all the audio levels in a group of files, but I don't recall
the name of the program. It would seem to me that Wavlab should be able
to do this, but I haven't figured out how to do it. I'll appreciate any
suggestions.
al


Normalize them all to RMS, quit playing around with matching peaks. Unless
you've crushed the waveform with compression, normalizing to peaks is not
going to result in the same relative volume level of every file. Normalizing
to RMS will. And of course Wavelab can tell you the peak and RMS, just click
up properties for the file.

I have Magix Sequioa 7, as well as Magix Audio Cleaning Lab. Just tried
them both. In their "Batch" mode, there is a feature to "normalize", but
not to "independant normalize", as you suggested.
Al

gunnar wrote:

Maybe you could use Magix Music Studio deLuxe. (see at www.magix.com)

It has a batch mode built in, where you simple select the source files
and the effects. Maybe "independant normalize to -1,5dB" could be a
good solution.

It is part of the Samplitude / Sequioa family, sharing the basic sound
machine so it does sound good as well. I use Samplitude myself in
classical on-site recording and is very happy with that.

Check out
www.magix.com

Huh? Does what? I've already meta-normalized the files. I just want to
find out which file is the Loudest in the group, without having to
search through them by hand. I just read the manual for
"meta-normalising" and it doesn't mention how to find the loudest file
in a group of files.
Al

"P. Mustard" wrote:

Wavelab does this...it's right in the manual under meta-normalising.

Yes, I have metanormalized them all to RMS, as I thought I had probably
indicated by saying "listening levels about the same". I wouldn't have
meta-normalized them had I simply wanted to normalize the peaks. Your suggestion
to check the peak and RMS ("just click up properties for the file") is pretty
much the same thing as my saying "I really hate playing through every single
file by hand to find the specific loudest file....".I HAVE been checking these
files, one a time, and I was looking for a quicker way to do it.
Sorry some of you don't appear to understand my question, but I only made
it through one year of college.
Alan

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.
For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking at
about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs by about
+4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds, actually).
Is there a program that will give me the actual volume stats on a
large group of files, just just I don't have to do them, one at a time.
By the way, these are all mono files.
I used to have a free program on my old computer that zipped through and
then listed all the audio levels in a group of files, but I don't recall
the name of the program. It would seem to me that Wavlab should be able
to do this, but I haven't figured out how to do it. I'll appreciate any
suggestions.
al


Normalize them all to RMS, quit playing around with matching peaks. Unless
you've crushed the waveform with compression, normalizing to peaks is not
going to result in the same relative volume level of every file. Normalizing
to RMS will. And of course Wavelab can tell you the peak and RMS, just click
up properties for the file.

Alan Cassaro wrote:

Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.

Audition gives a very nice statistical overview in its group normalize
function, and offers loudnes compensated as well as averaged group
normalisation.

For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking
at about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs
by about +4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds,
actually).

You can tell Audition what average loudness you want and ask it to "hard
limit" whatever that might hit the roof. There is a demo version
available so you can test out if its way of doing things is to your
liking. The new version insists on XP and sulks if it doesn't get at
least 512 megs of ram to play around in.

al


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Using your example below, if my loudest file is -20dB and the rest of the
files are at -30dB, at RMS listening levels, NOT peak levels, then I would
probably want to raise ALL of my files by about +19.90 in preperation for
a final CD, including the loudest file of -20 dB.That would maximize the
listening level of the loudest song up to the highest peak level, minus
0.10. And all of the other songs would be raised accordingly. I realize
that I could add more compression to boost the final levels even higher
without clipping, but these are vintage recordings from the 50s and 60s,
and I didn't want to change the dynamics of the original recordings at
all.
But, I'm NOT asking how to find the RMS listening levels, I'm asking
"What program will scan all of my files, in a batch process, and give me a
simple read out and listing of all the levels, so that I can find the
LOUDEST file in the group, quickly and easily, without my having to go
thru every file by hand.
Your suggestion to raise all the other songs up to -20dB would destroy
the relative listening levels of all the other songs in relation to the
loudest song, and that is NOT what I want to achieve. Of course, in actual
practice, I've noticed that one of my loudest songs is -1.45, while some
others are -12, but at that point, I had only gone thru about 14 of the
songs in about a 150 song collection.
That's when I recalled that I used to have a program that would give
me readouts of all the levels. I don't recall the name of the program, but
I recall that it automatically scanned thru all the files, and then listed
all the songs in a row, with the peak levels listed in the right column.
This was an information byproduct of a processing program that would then
normalize all of the files in the next stage, if I actually wanted to
proceed further.
alan


gunnar wrote:

Alan Cassaro wrote:
Sorry some of you don't appear to understand my question,

Might be true.
I fail to understand what you want to achieve. Say, as an example that
your loudest file is at -20dB and the rest is at -30dB. Then you want
to leave the strongest file untouched and the rest raised in volume to
-20dB. Is this what you want to achieve?

I would guess that this would leave each CD at a different level. An
alternative route might be to say that all files should be normalized
to, say, -3dB. Any file below that is raised, any file above that is
decreased. This is the function wavelab, samplitude and so on supports
as "independent normalize", generally the function in batch mode. This
is the function I suggested using as it gives a more "standard"
strenght between CD-s.

But if the first function is what you are looking for, I know of no
program that supports it. Sorry.

Gunnar

Hey, it looks like Audtion does the trick! All the numbers are right there
in the group normalize window, CD view. I've got version 2, and I haven't
used it much for anything other than cleaning up my old vinyl, as the
learning curve is a little more difficult than some of my other sound
editors. I use Wavlab for just about everything, because I like the way it's
laid out. I'll play around with Audition a little bit, but seeing all those
peak level readouts is EXACTLY what I was looking for. As a quick test, I
tried the hard limiting feature, but a few of the songs are picking up too
much bite.
This should save me hours of time. Thanks very much for your input.
Regards,
Alan

Peter Larsen wrote:

Alan Cassaro wrote:

Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.

Audition gives a very nice statistical overview in its group normalize
function, and offers loudnes compensated as well as averaged group
normalisation.

For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking
at about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs
by about +4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds,
actually).

You can tell Audition what average loudness you want and ask it to "hard
limit" whatever that might hit the roof. There is a demo version
available so you can test out if its way of doing things is to your
liking. The new version insists on XP and sulks if it doesn't get at
least 512 megs of ram to play around in.

al

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

If you meta-normalised to RMS then the files ARE all the same
'apparent' loudness to your ears.
That's what RMS is...apparent loudness.
So, you seem to be asking for help to cut down the tree
you have just cut down


Alan Cassaro wrote in
:

Huh? Does what? I've already meta-normalized the files..

Yes, that's true. However, the loudest file in the grouping that's been
meta-normalized is not adjusted to -0.25, as I would like it to be.
Hence, I need to pull up all of the files to that target goal, beginning
with the loudest track in the group. Let's say the loudest file is
-1.25. Then I would have to raise all the files by +1Db to fit into my
target goal, as well as keeping all of the apparent loudness the same in
relation to one another. Right?
Al

"P. Mustard" wrote:

If you meta-normalised to RMS then the files ARE all the same
'apparent' loudness to your ears.
That's what RMS is...apparent loudness.
So, you seem to be asking for help to cut down the tree
you have just cut down

Alan Cassaro wrote in
:

Huh? Does what? I've already meta-normalized the files..

Ok, now i know what you are looking for, I use Sound Forge, you can do
an auto search to have it find the loudest part without listening to the
whole song. I mostly used it to find either; pops, clips, or to find,
for example maybe a snare drum or kick drum that happend to to be louder
for just one beat. Hope that helps.

Jon


Alan Cassaro wrote:
Yes, I have metanormalized them all to RMS, as I thought I had probably
indicated by saying "listening levels about the same". I wouldn't have
meta-normalized them had I simply wanted to normalize the peaks. Your suggestion
to check the peak and RMS ("just click up properties for the file") is pretty
much the same thing as my saying "I really hate playing through every single
file by hand to find the specific loudest file....".I HAVE been checking these
files, one a time, and I was looking for a quicker way to do it.
Sorry some of you don't appear to understand my question, but I only made
it through one year of college.
Alan

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...
Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.
For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking at
about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs by about
+4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds, actually).
Is there a program that will give me the actual volume stats on a
large group of files, just just I don't have to do them, one at a time.
By the way, these are all mono files.
I used to have a free program on my old computer that zipped through and
then listed all the audio levels in a group of files, but I don't recall
the name of the program. It would seem to me that Wavlab should be able
to do this, but I haven't figured out how to do it. I'll appreciate any
suggestions.
al

Normalize them all to RMS, quit playing around with matching peaks. Unless
you've crushed the waveform with compression, normalizing to peaks is not
going to result in the same relative volume level of every file. Normalizing
to RMS will. And of course Wavelab can tell you the peak and RMS, just click
up properties for the file.

In article ,
says...

Yes, I have metanormalized them all to RMS, as I thought I had probably
indicated by saying "listening levels about the same". I wouldn't have
meta-normalized them had I simply wanted to normalize the peaks. Your
suggestion
to check the peak and RMS ("just click up properties for the file") is pretty
much the same thing as my saying "I really hate playing through every single
file by hand to find the specific loudest file....".I HAVE been checking these
files, one a time, and I was looking for a quicker way to do it.
Sorry some of you don't appear to understand my question, but I only
made
it through one year of college.

I don't even understand what you're trying to achieve. If you really have to
have all your files the same volume, you should play around with a compressor.
And there is no way to magically get them to the same relative loudness with a
batch process, as far as I know but there are some new plugins out that may do
something like that. What would be required is an algorhythm representing a
model of human hearing and then the program could compress and normalize all
files to the same relative loudness according to that model. Otherwise it's
something you'll have to do manually to each file as you listen to it, since
your ears and brain take the place of the 'human hearing model' in the
hypothetical batch-processing program I just described.



Alan

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

Using Wavlab, I meta-normalized about 150 files, just to get the
relative listening volumes about the same. However, I really hate
playing through every single file by hand to find the specific loudest
file in the group, in order to see how much I need to raise the volume
on the others, before burning the CD.
For example, if my hottest song in a group of songs is peaking at
about -4.23, I would then expect to raise ALL of the songs by about
+4.15, just prior to burning to a CD. (a series of Cds, actually).
Is there a program that will give me the actual volume stats on a
large group of files, just just I don't have to do them, one at a time.
By the way, these are all mono files.
I used to have a free program on my old computer that zipped through and
then listed all the audio levels in a group of files, but I don't recall
the name of the program. It would seem to me that Wavlab should be able
to do this, but I haven't figured out how to do it. I'll appreciate any
suggestions.
al


Normalize them all to RMS, quit playing around with matching peaks. Unless
you've crushed the waveform with compression, normalizing to peaks is not
going to result in the same relative volume level of every file.
Normalizing
to RMS will. And of course Wavelab can tell you the peak and RMS, just
click
up properties for the file.

Chevdo wrote:

I don't even understand what you're trying to achieve. If you
really have to have all your files the same volume, you should
play around with a compressor.

No. Simple level matching does the job if their peaks fit into the
desired average level.

And there is no way to magically get them to the same relative
loudness with a batch process

Several examples of software that can do it have been mentioned.


/Peter Larsen

In article ,
says...

And there is no way to magically get them to the same relative
loudness with a batch process

Several examples of software that can do it have been mentioned.



No several examples of software that can do what you are responding to that I
wrote have not been mentioned. Several examples of software that can do what
the original poster wanted to do have been mentioned, but what I was talking
about was not at all what the original poster was asking about. So, keep
working on your reading comprehension, Peter, you're not there yet...

Chevdo wrote:

And there is no way to magically get them to the same relative
loudness with a batch process

Several examples of software that can do it have been mentioned.

No several examples of software that can do what you are responding
to that I wrote have not been mentioned. Several examples of
software that can do what the original poster wanted to do have been
mentioned, but what I was talking about was not at all what the
original poster was asking about. So, keep working on your reading
comprehension, Peter, you're not there yet...

I need some guidance with this. Just what is the difference between "the
same average loudness" and "the same relative loudness"? - Audition does
a good job of getting things to the same average loudness and offers two
definitions thereof.

/Peter Larsen

In article ,
says...

Chevdo wrote:

And there is no way to magically get them to the same relative
loudness with a batch process

Several examples of software that can do it have been mentioned.

No several examples of software that can do what you are responding
to that I wrote have not been mentioned. Several examples of
software that can do what the original poster wanted to do have been
mentioned, but what I was talking about was not at all what the
original poster was asking about. So, keep working on your reading
comprehension, Peter, you're not there yet...

I need some guidance with this. Just what is the difference between "the
same average loudness" and "the same relative loudness"?

Well, the 'average loudness' would be obtained by averaging mathematically
according to the RMS. 'Relative loudness' refers to a psycho-acoustical
average (bass frequencies sound 'louder' than treble frequencies to humans), so
in order to make all files the same 'relative loudness', a psycho-acoustical
model of human hearing would need to be employed.


- Audition does
a good job of getting things to the same average loudness and offers two
definitions thereof.

/Peter Larsen

Chevdo wrote:

[quoting me]

Audition does a good job of getting things to the same
average loudness and offers two definitions thereof.

Well, the 'average loudness' would be obtained by averaging
mathematically according to the RMS. 'Relative loudness'
refers to a psycho-acoustical average (bass frequencies sound
'louder' than treble frequencies to humans), so in order to make
all files the same 'relative loudness', a psycho-acoustical
model of human hearing would need to be employed.

The second of the above two definitions is psycho-acoustally
compensated, imo and for the music I "level" with it linear averages
work best, because there is no way of knowing the playback level in
sones in advance, but if you want it it is there.

http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp?ftpID=3285


/Peter Larsen

In article ,
says...

Chevdo wrote:

[quoting me]

Audition does a good job of getting things to the same
average loudness and offers two definitions thereof.

Well, the 'average loudness' would be obtained by averaging
mathematically according to the RMS. 'Relative loudness'
refers to a psycho-acoustical average (bass frequencies sound
'louder' than treble frequencies to humans), so in order to make
all files the same 'relative loudness', a psycho-acoustical
model of human hearing would need to be employed.

The second of the above two definitions is psycho-acoustally
compensated, imo and for the music I "level" with it linear averages
work best, because there is no way of knowing the playback level in
sones in advance, but if you want it it is there.


Good point, you could normalize to a constant sone level and that would be a
psycho-acoustical model to achieve a form of 'relative loudness'. Do you know
of any plugins that normalize to sone settings?



http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp?ftpID=3285

Chevdo wrote:

Good point, you could normalize to a constant sone level

No, doing that necessitates that the playback SPL is known, the concept
is as broken as is fixed loudness compensation. The latter is broken
anyway because it destroys spatial perspective even when adjusted to the
loudspeaker efficiency, but it does not always matter.

and that would be a
psycho-acoustical model to achieve a form of 'relative loudness'. Do you know
of any plugins that normalize to sone settings?

Again, Audition gives it a good sporting try:

http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp?ftpID=3285


/Peter Larsen

In article ,
says...

Chevdo wrote:

Good point, you could normalize to a constant sone level

No, doing that necessitates that the playback SPL is known,

that could be ascertained with a microphone.


and that would be a
psycho-acoustical model to achieve a form of 'relative loudness'. Do you
know
of any plugins that normalize to sone settings?

Again, Audition gives it a good sporting try:

http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp?ftpID=3285


says I need to register to read whatever is at that link. Tell me what it is
already.

In article ,
says...

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

Chevdo wrote:

Good point, you could normalize to a constant sone level

No, doing that necessitates that the playback SPL is known,

that could be ascertained with a microphone.

Please explain how you would do that prior to rhe compilation arrives at
the end user, and how do you propose the situation of more than one end
user each with their own playback spl preference and wildly different
bass range reproduction should be addressed?

Ok you're barely on the same page as me in this discussion but I'm able to
decypher your statements and respond to them. I can tell you that I don't
enjoy having you tell me that X is possible, then after I muse about how X
could be possible, you inform me that X is impossible. That feels like a game
to me, a game in which you set yourself up as the winner. But regardless, I
guess that's another good point, the SPL reading would only be applicable to
the room the mastering engineer, in which case using sones would not be a
viable way to normalize to relative loudness. So again I ask, do you know of
any plugin that does try to normalize to relative loudness, with the definition
of relative loudness being taking into account a psycho-acoustical model of
human hearing?



and that would be a
psycho-acoustical model to achieve a form of 'relative loudness'. Do you
know
of any plugins that normalize to sone settings?

Again, Audition gives it a good sporting try:

http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp?ftpID=3285


says I need to register to read whatever is at that link. Tell me what it
is
already.

Chevdo, you suggested that I did not read your post(s) with sufficient
care and dedication. Just what could the combination "audition",
"tryadobe"" and "download" possibly imply? .... O;-) ... download it and
find out what it can and can not do instead of saying what you think it
can not possibly do.



I am asking you clearly if you know of any plugin that normalizes according to
a psycho-acoustical model, and you keep pointing me to a link that you claim
"gives it a good sporting try". But in order to access that link I have to
register to the website, which I don't feel like doing especially since I think
you are sending me on a wild goose chase in the first place. If you cannot
tell me what resides at that link, and whether or not what is at that link is a
plugin that normalizes according to a psycho-acoustical model of human hearing,
then you are simply obfuscating this entire attempt at communcation.

Chevdo wrote:

I am asking you clearly if you know of any plugin that
normalizes according to a psycho-acoustical model, and
you keep pointing me to a link that you claim
"gives it a good sporting try".

I pointed to to the adobe audition try-out download so that you yourself
can determine what it is the group normalize function in it offers in
its two differnt work modes, one being midrange focused and one being
full range focused.

Doing it like that is to the point and by definition according to a
psychoacoustic model in as much as the bass range is not a major part of
loudness perception at "wallpaper type" listening levels.

It is my experience the compensated averaging does not work well at
"listening to music" type levels, but the it is obviously useful in
other contexts.


/Peter Larsen

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:s8Kgg.8230$771.3508@edtnps89...
In article ,

says...

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,

says...

Chevdo wrote:

Good point, you could normalize to a constant sone level

No, doing that necessitates that the playback SPL is known,

that could be ascertained with a microphone.

Please explain how you would do that prior to rhe compilation arrives at
the end user, and how do you propose the situation of more than one end
user each with their own playback spl preference and wildly different
bass range reproduction should be addressed?

Ok you're barely on the same page as me in this discussion but I'm able to
decypher your statements and respond to them. I can tell you that I don't
enjoy having you tell me that X is possible, then after I muse about how X
could be possible, you inform me that X is impossible. That feels like a
game
to me, a game in which you set yourself up as the winner. But regardless,
I
guess that's another good point, the SPL reading would only be applicable
to
the room the mastering engineer, in which case using sones would not be a
viable way to normalize to relative loudness. So again I ask, do you know
of
any plugin that does try to normalize to relative loudness, with the
definition
of relative loudness being taking into account a psycho-acoustical model
of
human hearing?



and that would be a
psycho-acoustical model to achieve a form of 'relative loudness'. Do
you
know
of any plugins that normalize to sone settings?

Again, Audition gives it a good sporting try:

http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp?ftpID=3285


says I need to register to read whatever is at that link. Tell me what
it
is
already.

Chevdo, you suggested that I did not read your post(s) with sufficient
care and dedication. Just what could the combination "audition",
"tryadobe"" and "download" possibly imply? .... O;-) ... download it and
find out what it can and can not do instead of saying what you think it
can not possibly do.



I am asking you clearly if you know of any plugin that normalizes
according to
a psycho-acoustical model, and you keep pointing me to a link that you
claim
"gives it a good sporting try". But in order to access that link I have
to
register to the website, which I don't feel like doing especially since I
think
you are sending me on a wild goose chase in the first place. If you
cannot
tell me what resides at that link, and whether or not what is at that link
is a
plugin that normalizes according to a psycho-acoustical model of human
hearing,
then you are simply obfuscating this entire attempt at communcation.


PLONK!!!

In article ,
says...

PLONK!!!



Oh dear, 'Steven King' may not be reading my posts anymore! Good thing he
announced it, too, because it made me re-evaluate my whole life! And if it
wasn't for his puny ego, I would never have known! Three cheers for puny egos!

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

PLONK!!!

Oh dear, 'Steven King' may not be reading my posts anymore! Good thing he
announced it, too, because it made me re-evaluate my whole life! And if it
wasn't for his puny ego, I would never have known! Three cheers for puny egos!

Plink, plank, plonk. I reckon you're a plank actually. You certainly are pretty
dense.

Graham