Topic: To nomalize or not?

[zowie]

I think we're all trying to say the same thing.

[newblue]

I think we're all trying to say the same thing.

Don't make me break out the charts and graphs!   

[Brian Skalinder]

Therefore if you see a situation like this you can sacirfice this peak for the rest of the wave (i.e. normalize to 1.5 dB, or over zero).

Avoid compression, for the most part.  I run a Mini me and I have used the SLC only once, not bad results either.

Or, compress just the peak(s) in question and then normalize as you would, well...normally.  No point in clipping the peak, IMO.

[Craig T]

From what some recording engineers have told me, even just "adding gain" is destructive.  Audible?  No idea.

If my peaks are 0 to -3db, I don't normalize.  If they are lower, I'll always normalize the 16bit version, sometimes the 24bit.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

From what some recording engineers have told me, even just "adding gain" is destructive.  Audible?  No idea.

I've heard that before but haven't seen an opinion which really explains why it would be bad. I agree that it is different than gain from a pre..

I always add my gain before converting from 24 bit.

[newblue]

Therefore if you see a situation like this you can sacirfice this peak for the rest of the wave (i.e. normalize to 1.5 dB, or over zero).

Avoid compression, for the most part.  I run a Mini me and I have used the SLC only once, not bad results either.

Or, compress just the peak(s) in question and then normalize as you would, well...normally.  No point in clipping the peak, IMO.

This is what I have done in the past, pick em out and compress em to the nominal volume level then normalize.  Thanks for clarification bri.

Adding any gain is destructive in the sense that you raise the noise floor in your recording.  That's why you should aim to get the levels 'hot' enough so that you limit any reason to do anything in post.  [/preaching to choir]

[Craig T]

From what some recording engineers have told me, even just "adding gain" is destructive.  Audible?  No idea.

I've heard that before but haven't seen an opinion which really explains why it would be bad. I agree that it is different than gain from a pre..

I always add my gain before converting from 24 bit.

I should clarify.  When I do add gain, it is to the 24bit files prior to any resampling or dithering to 16bit.  But I often will seed 24bit files without the added gain, even when the resulting 16bit files might.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Adding any gain is destructive in the sense that you raise the noise floor in your recording.  That's why you should aim to get the levels 'hot' enough so that you limit any reason to do anything in post.  [/preaching to choir]

I have trouble with that explanation because cranking up the gain via pre-amp also raises the noise floor.

For the purposes of discussing this issue, let's focus on 24 bit. Without a doubt, there is a loss of resolution when 16 bit recordings are made below peak, etc.

[pfife]

Yes, always normalize.

If you're peaking at near 0db, I don't see the point in normalizing. 

When using normailize make sure you're not OVER-normalizing, you can kill the dynamics of the recording.

If you're peaking near 0db, there's no point.  I should have said always normalize if your signal is low, which I thought was self-evident.

You can't "overnormalize" and kill dynamics.  You're thinking of compression.  Normalization does not alter the dynamics, it makes everything proportionately hotter (at least if it's properly implemented in your software).

They mentioned uding SF, in SF's normalizaze box you can select "Average RMS Power" which does contain compression.  While normalizing it is also applying compression.

This is the correct answer.  RMS normalization does compress anything that is louder than the RMS value specified.  Peak normalization does what Skalinder and SongsOfFreedom are referring to - normalizing the the whole file to the pre-existing peak point.  It will take the peak and adjust that to 0db, and adjust the volume of everything else accordingly.

[newblue]

I see your point, but the noise floor is relative to the amplitude of the waveform, right?  Bare with me.  Let's say that you make a recording and the amplitude if very low (-18dB) and you choose to normalize the wave form.  The noise floor is at -86 dB and you normalize to 0dB.  The noise floor is now -68dB (might as well record in 8 bit).  Now if you had your preamp turned up to where the levels were right at below 0dB, the noise floor is not at -68dB (I hope).

This goes along with resolution in recording.  The higher the resolution the lower the theoretical noise floor, correct?

[zowie]

Adding any gain is destructive in the sense that you raise the noise floor in your recording.  That's why you should aim to get the levels 'hot' enough so that you limit any reason to do anything in post.  [/preaching to choir]

I have trouble with that explanation because cranking up the gain via pre-amp also raises the noise floor.

For the purposes of discussing this issue, let's focus on 24 bit. Without a doubt, there is a loss of resolution when 16 bit recordings are made below peak, etc.

First of all, "destructive" does not mean "degrades the sound."  It means the original file is forever altered, be it for better or worse.   Non-destructive editing means you get a new file and the old one is left alone (or is completely restorable).  If you process a gain change on the original file, it's destructive.  If you generate a new copy with higher gain, the gain change was non destructive.  This is a red herring.

Freelunch is right.  You don't add any extra noise by doing a gain change.  The signal to noise ratio stays the same.  If you normalize and then turn down the playback volume so you're listening at the same levels as  before you normalized, you would have the same amount of noise as if you didn't normalize.  That's equally true of 16 and 24 bit, although the 24 bit may have a lower noise floor, so the bit rate is not a data point.  (There's actually more to this, but enough for now.)

So why normalize?

Because if the levels are lower you have to turn up the playback stereo further to get the desired volume. Then, not only are you turning up the noise on the recording just as much as you would if you had normalized it, but you are also turning up the noise generated by your playback system, adding to the total noise.

Plus, it's just annoying when one CD plays at a lower level than others and it sounds like a less professional production.

The above refers only to peak normalization, which is what normalization generally, but apparently not always, means.  Normalization with compression has a whole set of different issues.

[zowie]

I see your point, but the noise floor is relative to the amplitude of the waveform, right?  Bare with me.  Let's say that you make a recording and the amplitude if very low (-18dB) and you choose to normalize the wave form.  The noise floor is at -86 dB and you normalize to 0dB.  The noise floor is now -68dB (might as well record in 8 bit).  Now if you had your preamp turned up to where the levels were right at below 0dB, the noise floor is not at -68dB (I hope).

No.

If your peak is at -18 and your noise floor is at -86, your signal to noise ratio, which is what matters is 68db.

If you normalize so that your peaks are at zero and your noise floor is at -68, your signal to noise ratio is still 68 db.

If you don't normalize, you'll turn up the gain when you play back the recording by anohter 18 db to get the same playback level, and your noise floor is also raised by 18 db.  Except that if you don't normalize and have to crank the stereo further, you're adding additional noise and possibly distortion by using more gain from the stereo.

OF COURSE it's better to record with sufficiently hot levels in the first place.  We're discussing what is to be done when the levels are low.

[newblue]

I see your point, but the noise floor is relative to the amplitude of the waveform, right?  Bare with me.  Let's say that you make a recording and the amplitude if very low (-18dB) and you choose to normalize the wave form.  The noise floor is at -86 dB and you normalize to 0dB.  The noise floor is now -68dB (might as well record in 8 bit).  Now if you had your preamp turned up to where the levels were right at below 0dB, the noise floor is not at -68dB (I hope).

No.

If your peak is at -18 and your noise floor is at -86, your signal to noise ratio, which is what matters is 68db.

If you normalize so that your peaks are at zero and your noise floor is at -68, your signal to noise ratio is still 68 db.

If you don't normalize, you'll turn up the gain when you play back the recording by anohter 18 db to get the same playback level, and your noise floor is also raised by 18 db.

I need proof of this.

[momule]

First of all, "destructive" does not mean "degrades the sound."  It means the original file is forever altered, be it for better or worse.   Non-destructive editing means you get a new file and the old one is left alone (or is completely restorable).  If you process a gain change on the original file, it's destructive.  If you generate a new copy with higher gain, the gain change was non destructive.  This is a red herring.

Freelunch is right.  You don't add any extra noise by doing a gain change.  The signal to noise ratio stays the same.  If you normalize and then turn down the playback volume so you're listening at the same levels as  before you normalized, you would have the same amount of noise as if you didn't normalize.  That's equally true of 16 and 24 bit, although the 24 bit may have a lower noise floor, so the bit rate is not a data point.  (There's actually more to this, but enough for now.)

So why normalize?

Because if the levels are lower you have to turn up the playback stereo further to get the desired volume. Then, not only are you turning up the noise on the recording just as much as you would if you had normalized it, but you are also turning up the noise generated by your playback system, adding to the total noise.

Plus, it's just annoying when one CD plays at a lower level than others and it sounds like a less professional production.

The above refers only to peak normalization, which is what normalization generally, but apparently not always, means.  Normalization with compression has a whole set of different issues.

Nice to see some truth  ....
Just for the record almost any "good" audio software anymore should allow you to master without being destructive to the master file. . I choose Wavelab 5 or Pro Tools because you can master in "real time". SF try's.  But its not what I consider a pro application anyway. Its geared at the hip hop kids , Dj's and such.. But technically it is still non destructive as you don't have to save the DSP to the master file. simply rename it..

I have said since day one. It seems to me that allot of "Taper's" don't really know much when it comes to mastering, Which IMO is half of the battle of making a good ambient recoding.. They simply go by what someone else told them one time , which was prolly false to start with...

Anyone nowwa days with a credit card can be a taper and can push some button's and make a recording. 
But it stands out to me the folks who can "master" ..... Ya know so that you can enjoy it without blowing your sub , or so that you don't have to crank your pre to get a 'listenable" volume..
 I pull and instantly delete a dozen shows a week cause they are not enjoyable to listen to . Either the bass is wayy too heavy(learn to use a paragraphic EQ). Or the overall recording is just very low (don't be afraid to run a bit hotter) 

I honestly wish that half the folks would try a bit more to put out quality tapes instead of trying to be the first to get it out. As I stated in another thread I spoke with a well known engineer for a band we all know,  And he told me if it were up to him we wouldn't be allowed to tape as most of the stuff he hears sounds rough and gives the impression that his mix sounded like that the night of the show which is more than likely not the case. He too said the bass is almost always wayyyyy overloaded..  And not an accurate representation of how it sounded that night..

It just scares me to hear things like this coming from folks like this as its giving us all a bad name.. And may jeopardize our privilege to record.

[zowie]

Nice to see some truth  ....

+t for flattery.

Just for the record almost any "good" audio software anymore should allow you to master without being destructive to the master file. . I choose Wavelab 5 or Pro Tools because you can master in "real time". SF try's.  But its not what I consider a pro application anyway. Its geared at the hip hop kids , Dj's and such.. But technically it is still non destructive as you don't have to save the DSP to the master file. simply rename it..

I have said since day one. It seems to me that allot of "Taper's" don't really know much when it comes to mastering, Which IMO is half of the battle of making a good ambient recoding.. They simply go by what someone else told them one time , which was prolly false to start with...

Anyone nowwa days with a credit card can be a taper and can push some button's and make a recording. 
But it stands out to me the folks who can "master" ..... Ya know so that you can enjoy it without blowing your sub , or so that you don't have to crank your pre to get a 'listenable" volume..
 I pull and instantly delete a dozen shows a week cause they are not enjoyable to listen to . Either the bass is wayy too heavy(learn to use a paragraphic EQ). Or the overall recording is just very low (don't be afraid to run a bit hotter) 

I honestly wish that half the folks would try a bit more to put out quality tapes instead of trying to be the first to get it out. As I stated in another thread I spoke with a well known engineer for a band we all know,  And he told me if it were up to him we wouldn't be allowed to tape as most of the stuff he hears sounds rough and gives the impression that his mix sounded like that the night of the show which is more than likely not the case. He too said the bass is almost always wayyyyy overloaded..  And not an accurate representation of how it sounded that night..

It just scares me to hear things like this coming from folks like this as its giving us all a bad name.. And may jeopardize our privilege to record.

You are right on the money.   Although I think the low quality of some tapes may actually perpetuate our ability to record because it doesn't compete with the commercial stuff.