Topic: Do you normalize?

[Bdifr78]

I usually run my levels kinda low.  Most of the time I even out the two channels to come close to matching db.  Then I amplify the whole recording so my peaks are at 0db. 

Doesn't normailzing eliminate the dynamic range of a recording quite a bit, so everything is close to the same volume?

[blu666z]

I usually run my levels kinda low. Most of the time I even out the two channels to come close to matching db. Then I amplify the whole recording so my peaks are at 0db.

Doesn't normailzing eliminate the dynamic range of a recording quite a bit, so everything is close to the same volume?

Normalizing doesn't change the dynamic range at all. 

[inside source]

I think it's better to record slightly down, so you are prevented from CLIPPING.

But if you record at low levels you get lower signal/noise ratio, right? Then there should be some compromise between avoiding clipping and too low levels.

Normalizing doesn't do anything to the 'quality' correct?  It only raises the overall level.

As I understand normalization is not a lossless process. You have 16 bits per sample, and each time you change the volume in software it recalculates the file and there must be some rounding errors. For a one time normalization the quality loss should be negligible though.

[SparkE!]

I usually run my levels kinda low. Most of the time I even out the two channels to come close to matching db. Then I amplify the whole recording so my peaks are at 0db.

Doesn't normailzing eliminate the dynamic range of a recording quite a bit, so everything is close to the same volume?

Normalizing doesn't change the dynamic range at all. 

Correct.  It's recording a low level that reduces the available dynamic range.  If you don't use the dynamic range available to you, it's forever lost.  Normalizing doesn't reduce the dynamic range, but it can reduce S/N ratio by up to about 1.7 dB (due to rounding) if I remember correctly.  If you are lucky enough that normalizing is accomplished by mulitplication by an integer power of 2, then you lose nothing in S/N ratio since there is never any rounding.  (Mulitiplication by an integer power of 2 is the same as adding an integer multiple of 6.0206 dB gain.)  When you multiply by 1.5 (same as adding 3.52 dB of gain), you get the worst degradation in S/N ratio due to rounding.  Of course, it gets worse than that when you multiply by less than 1, but we're talking about increasing gain here, not decreasing gain.  Decreasing gain will always compromise both S/N ratio and dynamic range.

[inside source]

If you are lucky enough that normalizing is accomplished by mulitplication by an integer power of 2, then you lose nothing in S/N ratio since there is never any rounding.

Do you mean it's better to rise the gain by 6 dB instead of normalization? If I have peaks lower than 6 dB then should I just multiply the signal by 2? That won't be normalization to 100%, but to a some percent close to that and leave the same s/n ratio?

I'm not sure I get your point. Lets say I have S/N ratio at 60 dB according to my recorder specs. I get some constant noise at that level. Now I record at low levels with peaks say at -12 dB. Now my signal to noise ratio is 12 to 60, which is less than when I record at high levels (like 0 to 60). Then I gain the signal, and I gain the noise too. Or am I completely wrong here?

[fsulloway]

aaaccckkk!! 

:head spins:

I run hot levels, so that I don't have to learn math.

[BC]

If you are lucky enough that normalizing is accomplished by mulitplication by an integer power of 2, then you lose nothing in S/N ratio since there is never any rounding.

Do you mean it's better to rise the gain by 6 dB instead of normalization? If I have peaks lower than 6 dB then should I just multiply the signal by 2? That won't be normalization to 100%, but to a some percent close to that and leave the same s/n ratio?

I doubt that doing this (normalizing by integer powers of two)  in an attempt to keep the same s/n ratio will make any real-world audible difference from normalizing by a non integer multiple of two.
In fact, if your peaks are less than -6dB, I would guess that if you are going to normalize, the "loudness" benefits from normalizing all the way up to 0dB would outweigh the benefits of limiting your normalization factor to some integer number. Just thinking out loud here though, I don't know for sure.

[F.O.Bean]

mostly, and im not talking, CLIPPING, but hitting 0db on thje v3 means im maximizing my dynamic range and also my volume for that recording

IF i do any editing anymore, its a gain change rather than a normalize!

[Bdifr78]

Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does.  I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file.  As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.

So what the hell is it? 

Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe

[BC]

Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does.  I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file.  As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.

So what the hell is it? 

Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe

I always thought of it as basically a gain or volume change, I always used a "peak normalize" which I thought meant take the loudest peak, and increase the volume of the overall passage so the peak then hits some certain value (for example I used to peak normalize to -0.02 dB in sound forge, just under 0dB).

Never thought there was compression associated with this process.

 

[Bdifr78]

Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does.  I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file.  As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.

So what the hell is it? 

Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe

I always thought of it as basically a gain or volume change, I always used a "peak normalize" which I thought meant take the loudest peak, and increase the volume of the overall passage so the peak then hits some certain value (for example I used to peak normalize to -0.02 dB in sound forge, just under 0dB).

Never thought there was compression associated with this process.

 

So why do they give you different options for volume and normalization on Sound Forge?  That would imply that there has gotta be something different about it.

[Brian]

basically all normalization does is find the loudest sample of your recording and raises the whole level of the recording so that point is at 0dB.  If you already clipped at 0, peak normalization will do absolutely nothing for your recording.  RMS normalization can help but i'd rather just put a soft limiter or compressor on instead of RMS normalization.  To be honest I do that instead of normalization anyway if i need to.

does that make sense?

[BC]

Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does.  I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file.  As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.

So what the hell is it? 

Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe

I always thought of it as basically a gain or volume change, I always used a "peak normalize" which I thought meant take the loudest peak, and increase the volume of the overall passage so the peak then hits some certain value (for example I used to peak normalize to -0.02 dB in sound forge, just under 0dB).

Never thought there was compression associated with this process.

 

So why do they give you different options for volume and normalization on Sound Forge?  That would imply that there has gotta be something different about it.

one thing that comes to mind is that using volume you can really brickwall your waveform if you crank it up. With peak normalization the most you can boost your max peak is up to 0dB.
I see peak normalization kind of as a "smart" volume adjustment since you can choose exactly where you want to peak out.

I could see how RMS normalization might have some compression involved in the normalization process due to the different nature of this type of normalizing (vs peak normalizing), But I never use RMS, I tried it once and it gave some funky strange sounding "pumping" of the sound in certain parts. Not natural sounding to my ears at all. I would also rather throw on a bit of soft limiting followed by peak normalization for music with low overall levels but some very sharp peaks.

BC

[Bdifr78]

Thanks, I was tottally confused I guess.  +T to both of ya(BC, STL-taper)

[Brian]

that "pumping" sound you hear is over-compression/limiting.  a lower ratio and higher threshold will help avoid this.

sounds like you know what you are doing/ want to do.  have fun making your recordings better!

backatcha Bdifr78 and + to you as well BC