Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: cgresq192 on November 12, 2005, 11:00:56 AM
-
I was wondering if normalizing is a good or bad thing. Usually my recordings will be on the low side and peak out around -18- in sound forge. However when I normalize -16RMS,the standard "music" setting in SF, the entire mix sounds much better. Any help or ideas is much appreciated.
-
Any help or ideas is much appreciated.
If your peaks are that low, then yeah - it's probably a good idea to bump your levels up in post. Just keep in mind it'll bump up any noise as well. Not a huge deal for AUD recording of a PA, but why do it if you don't have to? Your levels shouldn't, don't need to be, that low. Get your peaks approaching -0dB at the time of recording so you don't need to normalize in post.
-
Yes, always normalize.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
I don't understand why you would record with peaks averaging -18 db.
To me, part of the fun and definately part of the skill in taping is getting your levels close to 0 db without going "over."
In the beginning I normalized many of my recordings, but now, I never do.
-
I don't understand why you would record with peaks averaging -18 db.
To me, part of the fun and definately part of the skill in taping is getting your levels close to 0 db without going "over."
In the beginning I normalized many of my recordings, but now, I never do.
Could be running stealth and whatever gear they're running doesn't have the easiest levels adjustment. jb3/md etc...
-
Normalizing means "just adding gain" but apparently SF and perhaps other software have expanded the definition a bit.
-
I 'JUST' add gain in wavelab 4.0/5.0 rather than normalize YMMV tho
-
exactly, I'm using a JB3 in stealth with a SPSB6 battery box with bass roll off, no level controls at all. What is the best way to properly normalize or bring up the overall levels of the recording if I'm average peaking at -18. Thanks again!
-
exactly, I'm using a JB3 in stealth with a SPSB6 battery box with bass roll off, no level controls at all. What is the best way to properly normalize or bring up the overall levels of the recording if I'm average peaking at -18. Thanks again!
The long way, but you kind of get an idea of what SF is doing.
Go to the View tab select Play Meters and make sure it's checked.
Fo to Tools select Find select Find Largest Peak (maximum value)
After you find the largest peak, play, starting a few seconds before the peak and play through it. The meter on the left at the top will show you the value of the largest peak.
Once you know that value take the smallest value (if L is -16.2 R is 15.9 go with the 15.9). Go to Process tab and select Volume, increase the volume of the entire recording 15.9db.
The quick and easy way...
Process tab > Normalize Normalize using 0.00db on the slider at the left and make sure Peak Level is the button selected.
picture below:
-
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).
Yes you are correct, simply normalizing shouldn't. In SF there are additional options one could confuse with normalizing IN the normalizing tab.
-
Thanks
-
I'm not sure that this was explained entirely correctly....
To normalize a waveform is to take the highest peak in the waveform and increase it's height to a set value and then the normalize function increases amplitude of the remainder of the waveform that amount (normalize the waveform according to the amplitude adjustment to the highest peak). Same as gain but there is a little more protection from pushing past ceiling zero in post since you can set the ceiling.
The crappy thing about normalizing (imo) is that when there is a peak that is much higher than the rest of the waveform normalizing willl cause the amplitude of rest of the waveform to be increased only slightly since the high peak limits the room to ceiling zero. 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.
-
I think we're all trying to say the same thing.
-
I think we're all trying to say the same thing.
Don't make me break out the charts and graphs! :P
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
that's a good point . But to me they should have nothing to worry about as long as they have there shit together. As they have a whole lot more to work with than us . Including compressors and finalizers and so on. which (if used correctly) can dramaticly improve any recording.
The Muletracks are a prime example here . The first few dozen shows were horrible (and I mean Horrible) I'm betting if your average mini disc taper had a Board feed he could have produced better tapes.
I'm not sure if it was from Slim's mix or the post production. I honestly thought Peter would do good things for um, But was kinda let down by a few of the shows he put out including the Big House show. The mix was not so hot and overall sound was very low (almost seemed more of an audience tape instead of a SBD matrix.) And being a long time mule fan it was hard for me to fork out $15 bucks for a SBD that sounded no better than my aud tape..
-
You know, there's a reason why most tapers don't master recordings, right? It has nothing to do with a lack of skill or desire...
-
why is that?
Not trying to be a smart ass, just didn't know if there was some unwritten rule I didn't know about.
-
Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers. Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing... I personally buy into this.
There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened. I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense: mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes, and bit rate all are variables.
Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category. But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap. That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording...
I know a lot of people here, especially shun compression...
Definately interested to hear your opinion.
-
Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers. Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing... I personally buy into this.
There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened. I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense: mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes, and bit rate all are variables.
Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category. But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap. That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording...
In reply I could agree in some parts with your reply to parts about x-y , But If your judging your Rig by the sound that someone else is making of another band in another city on another night... your a braver man than I.... Or Crazy or both
And again what gear did ya hear it through when making these decisions.? DO I need to hear it through the same gear to get an accurate representation of the gear used?
The problem I see is most of the tapes I hear are not an accurate representation of what ya heard that Night , As if it was a lot of Engineers would loose there job's. And ticket sales would be down.. plain and simple.
I simply think that if half the folks spent half as much time reading about how and why and where to use certain mastering techniques we could all benefit from it.. Not only from better tapes for us all but maybe a better name among the "community".
+T for intelligent conversation without getting all bent out of shape
Nick
-
Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers. Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing... I personally buy into this.
There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened. I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense: mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes, and bit rate all are variables.
Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category. But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap. That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording...
In reply I could agree in some parts with your reply to parts about x-y , But If your judging your Rig by the sound that someone else is making of another band in another city on another night... your a braver man than I.... Or Crazy or both
And again what gear did ya hear it through when making these decisions.? DO I need to hear it through the same gear to get an accurate representation of the gear used?
Well, I didn't mean to imply that it is the only criteria for making a decision on which gear to purchase, but it can be used to help determine whether a certain peice of gear is right for you or not - and most would advocate listening to multiple shows using the gear in question. For instance, I've listened to enough tapes using a certain kind of mic (which will remain nameless.... ;)) to know that I'd never want to own that brand of mics. I've also heard a number of tapes using a certain other brand of mics that totally kick my ass, and make the speakers seem to melt into the wall... (and those will remain nameless as well...)
I don't really see how the playback gear matters much - what do you mean by "hear it through the same gear"?
The problem I see is most of the tapes I hear are not an accurate representation of what ya heard that Night , As if it was a lot of Engineers would loose there job's. And ticket sales would be down.. plain and simple.
Nah, some people just hate live music, so they wouldn't buy it. I have a number of friends that are that way. Further, some people like going to concerts - I have a number of friends who are that way too. I happen to be both.
I simply think that if half the folks spent half as much time reading about how and why and where to use certain mastering techniques we could all benefit from it.. Not only from better tapes for us all but maybe a better name among the "community".
No dispute there. In my case, I never do anything more than normalizing - but that's because I know my skill limitations, and I've never felt it was necessary. However, there are people here that say if a tape made by a good taper w/ good gear sounds like crap on your playback, then your playback sucks. However, that's definately debatable!
+T for intelligent conversation without getting all bent out of shape
Nick
You as well.
-
Contrary to what some here have said, I actually think many of my recordings played back through my home system sound better than it did during the live event. I typically don't do any "mastering" (on rare occations a touch of EQ to drop some bass out). Maybe I'm the greatest taper ever. Some have said I am "the man". ;D
-
Contrary to what some here have said, I actually think many of my recordings played back through my home system sound better than it did during the live event. I typically don't do any "mastering". Maybe I'm the greatest taper ever. Some have said I am "the man". ;D
:lol:
awesome. I know what you mean though!
-
I know a lot of people here, especially shun compression...
Definately interested to hear your opinion.
If used correctly, I see no problem with it. Simply learn to use it correctly and It could be a valuable tool ..
If compression, Limiters, gates, finalizers and so on were not used the studio stuff would sound just like our live recordings. And you would prolly have a hard time justifying the cost if the Cd/dvd's.
I find it funny that some folks were saying to compress the peaks then normalize. that seems crazy to me as I would simply normalize and apply dynamic compression to the peaks/over's all in one step. (see the above post for a pic)
Its funny for me as 90% of the stuff I read here goes against How I have been instructed.
Most community colleges offer some sorta audio classes for a little of nothing. I figure if ya have $2000+ in gear what's $200 for an education on how to properly use the equipment.
I like the set up and expertise of a local Studio here in town http://www.chapmanrecording.com/
-
Most want to leave the recordings unadulterated in order to give the best representation of the gear possible to other tapers. Many times, someone will say "I'm trying to decide between X and Y - which should I get?" and people will tell them to check out sources of each - if they are mastered sources, it piles on more factors in the decision making process, and determining the true capabilities of the gear. This is also why people are totally neurotic about sourcing... I personally buy into this.
I think what you wrote is pretty accurate as a generalization, but I don't buy into that mindset at all. It's totally missing the forrest for the trees. Don't make the music sound as good as it could because maybe some anonymous listener down the line will want to use the tape as a Consumer's Guide? The toys are fun, but when they become more important than the music, something's gone wrong.
There are also people that argue that post-processing is messing with an otherwise accurate historical representation of the event as it actually happened. I agree with this less, as many things that the taper does will have an effect on the recording and its accuracy to the recording in a historical sense: mics, caps, mic placement, mic config, mic cables, pre, recorder, A/D, sample rate, mistakes, and bit rate all are variables.
Good mastering should not (IMO) result in something that's different than the live event, but more like the event than the raw tape. Subject to some exceptions. Like if the room is unfortunately booming because of bad accoustics or bad sound guy, why the hell should I have to listen to that booming for the sake of historical accuracy if I can band-compress it out.
Of course, there are a vast number of people who really don't know how to master recordings, and I'll count myself in that category. But, I don't think that encouraging people to do more mastering is going to result in more good recordings, as most people will make them sound good on the system on their computer, and when played on many other playback systems, it'll sound like crap. That doesn't mean that people couldn't learn to master recordings effectively, just in my experience, mastering is the most difficult part of recording.
I know a lot of people here, especially shun compression...
I do agree. I'd rather a recording was left alone than made worse by someone who didn't have the ears of the equipment needed to do a decent job. (And a real mastering engineer will say that nobody but a small number of specialists with lots of expenisve gear can properly master, not even pro engineers who do the tracking and mixing.)
A lot of people shun compression because the way it is increasingly abused in the commercial pop CD "loudness wars" has made it fashionable to do so. But many recordings are vastly improved by compression. Many superb sounding audiophile recordings use compression. You have to be a genius to get most close-miced singers or drum kits to fit into a multi-track mix without some compression. Ambient recordings of unamplified music are often benefitted by compression.
But an exception is tapes of PA sound. Why? Not because compression is "bad" but because there are already compressors running in the PA systems. And exciters. And eq. And other stuff some tapers will tell you should never be used. Well, yeah, if it's already been done for you, adding more to the tape can be overkill that ruins the sound.
-
I don't really see how the playback gear matters much - what do you mean by "hear it through the same gear"?
if we did a "name that source" you may think it was Mk4>V3>Jb3 when enjoyed on your playback rig.
However I may hear 483>W-mod>Jb3 ..... because of the gear used to play it back..
and then lets not even get started on the IC's used and how long they were burned in and so on.... ;) to many variables is all
-
If compression, Limiters, gates, finalizers and so on were not used the studio stuff would sound just like our live recordings. And you would prolly have a hard time justifying the cost if the Cd/dvd's.
Actually, the studio stuff would sound worse than our tapes, because a good house PA is running alot of that gear in real time on the live sound. Tapers have things made pretty easy for them.
-
I think what you wrote is pretty accurate as a generalization, but I don't buy into that mindset at all. It's totally missing the forrest for the trees. Don't make the music sound as good as it could because maybe some anonymous listener down the line will want to use the tape as a Consumer's Guide? The toys are fun, but when they become more important than the music, something's gone wrong.
Good mastering should not (IMO) result in something that's different than the live event, but more like the event than the raw tape. Subject to some exceptions. Like if the room is unfortunately booming because of bad accoustics or bad sound guy, why the hell should I have to listen to that booming for the sake of historical accuracy if I can band-compress it out.
Im just glad Im not the only one who thinks like this...
-
I find it funny that some folks were saying to compress the peaks then normalize. that seems crazy to me as I would simply normalize and apply dynamic compression to the peaks/over's all in one step. (see the above post for a pic)
Its funny for me as 90% of the stuff I read here goes against How I have been instructed.
If the compressor is set properly, the levels should be where they belong coming out of the compressor. That may be the same thing as what you're saying.
-
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)
Very good points, MoMule. FWIW, I rarely do much mastering with my recordings for several reasons:
- I generally like the way they sound
- I don't find the benefits (to me) worth the additional time and effort
- I make the recordings for my ears, and my playback, and am not set up with proper monitors to ensure it sounds "just so" on everyone's playback system
- the venues in which I record generally sound good - have good PAs, good people behind the board, not horrible (and granted not great, either) acoustics, etc., and I make the effort to secure a good location for my ambient mics
- the minor imperfections - and I don't mean something so blaringly awful that the recording's downright unlistenable - all contribute in some way to the character of the recording; the flaws are part of the experience for me, just as I find a live band - warts and all - appealing.
.
I'm not interested in turning my recordings into uber-polished, perfect-sounding, exquisitely EQ'd masterpieces. But I agree that a bit of discretionary mastering can make a significant difference in the overall end result of the recording.
If used correctly, I see no problem with it. Simply learn to use it correctly and It could be a valuable tool. If compression, Limiters, gates, finalizers and so on were not used the studio stuff would sound just like our live recordings. And you would prolly have a hard time justifying the cost if the Cd/dvd's.
On the other hand, many studio releases waaaay over-utilize those nifty little features, so the resulting "mastered" recording sounds like horseshit - no dynamic range, very 'closed' sounding, etc.
I find it funny that some folks were saying to compress the peaks then normalize. that seems crazy to me as I would simply normalize and apply dynamic compression to the peaks/over's all in one step.
I think I'm one of the ones who said that - and yeah, I'd to it all in one fell swoop, too, but I described it as two functions because it's easier to understand for those who aren't familiar with those functions. The intent was really to illustrate that two different functions together can accomplish a particular goal - either performed independently, or simultaneously. I figure anyone willing to learn about compression will also learn enough in the process of experimentation, reading Help files and tutorials, etc., to realize they can apply the compression and normalization at the same time.
Its funny for me as 90% of the stuff I read here goes against How I have been instructed.
I, for one, appreciate the discussion and your perspective, and would love to see more feedback from you about the 90% of stuff "we" do here that goes against what you've learned. The more we all know, the better decisions we can make about what's right for each of us to do individually. Without the information, well...it's just an uninformed decision, hardly a good way to go about it.
Most community colleges offer some sorta audio classes for a little of nothing. I figure if ya have $2000+ in gear what's $200 for an education on how to properly use the equipment.
While I'm familiar with most of the concepts involved in master, and have dabbled a bit, I admit: I'm no expert, and that's one of the reasons - along with the ones listed above - I don't fiddle as much with mastering as maybe I should. I hadn't thought about taking a local community college class, that's a great idea. As it is, my perception of my recordings as Good Enough doesn't exactly motivate me to dig into it further than I have already. But taking a class would encourage me to explore more. +T for the idea and good discussion.
-
I find it funny that some folks were saying to compress the peaks then normalize. that seems crazy to me as I would simply normalize and apply dynamic compression to the peaks/over's all in one step. (see the above post for a pic)
Its funny for me as 90% of the stuff I read here goes against How I have been instructed.
If the compressor is set properly, the levels should be where they belong coming out of the compressor. That may be the same thing as what you're saying.
basicly the same thing.
I was refering to the above post.
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=53916.msg704920#msg704920
when using SF's normalize funtion you have the option to nomalize and add dynamic compression to the peaks at the same time.
-
This is a wonderful thread!!! I kinda thought I was a rare person to actually attempt to master my recordings. Seems I'm not alone. I'm still learning... not a know it all, but I enjoy doing it. I would love to hear others thoughts and some more specifics on this subject!!!
I'm not going to dig up all the quotes but here are a few of my comments... it is my belief that rms normalizing doesn't compress the wav, it just finds the median of the recording instead of the peak the adjusts based on that... so with a really dynamic recording (ie LIVE), you are likely to clip it becuase the dynamic spread is so great. Typical normalizing will find the peak and raise the whole file an equal amount just like a simple gain change except it makes the change acurately. If you have random peaks suck as a pop evey time the singer touches the mic this can alter your normalizing. You can just pic that milisecond in time and knock it down by reducing gain or compressing before you normalize. Aslo if you are normalizing song by song, it is a good idea to cut all your tracks at the impacting first note of a song so that you don't hear a level bumb during a quiet point between songs or hear the room ambiance jump without a musical punch.
When I am checking out gear or a room via the archive... if it doesn't already say specifically what steps were taken in mastering, I will drop an email to the taper to ask... I get them from time to time too. For me, unless I say "only bitrate conversion and dither" then you can bet I did a lot more.
Compression... love it. Just a touch and it makes a world of difference. If I always listened with my stereo cranked I maybe wouldn't use it, but to have dynamics so low you have to strain to hear it, and then so loud the neighbors are pissed just makes no sense. Not every recording but most. VA_Taper passed on to me a technique of doing multiple small compression runs that I've been playing with instead of one larger squeeze.
As momule stated I also use eq... if you can learn to pick out room frequencies in your recording and knock them down a bit, you can do amazing things. Throw in a good studio cs, crank your home stereo and walk around your living room near corners etc... you will find resonacies in your living room (bass hum or painful highs). Now make the room 10 times bigger and the source 10 times louder, and you have bigger problems... I sometimes knock down 4 or 5 different frequencies below 200hz! A spectrum anylizer helps a lot, and a parametric eq that allows a real narrow mid band... just slide it up and down till that problem frequency goes away. Ever hear a recording where the bass player seems to hit one particular note reall loud all the time? that is a resonancy not the bass palyer or engineer. Also I don't care what your rig is... diferent distances from the source will make a differance on how your mics record. Different frequencies move at different rates.
I'm not saying it is impossible to take home the gold and do nothing... just not every time in every situation.
Matt
-
A spectrum anylizer helps a lot,
Matt
this and trial and error as you said matt can train your eyes to find what your ears are hearing...
+t matt for caring enough to take the time to make it sound as good as it can or as good as it sounded that night..
-
I'm not interested in turning my recordings into uber-polished, perfect-sounding, exquisitely EQ'd masterpieces. But I agree that a bit of discretionary mastering can make a significant difference in the overall end result of the recording.
Me neither , just wanna try to make um as accurate/good as possible
On the other hand, many studio releases waaaay over-utilize those nifty little features, so the resulting "mastered" recording sounds like horseshit - no dynamic range, very 'closed' sounding, etc.
the last couple I have picked up have been pretty good IMO . I still cant get the Clapton Sessions for Robert Johnson out my player. check it out (24bits of smokin ass clapton) if that's your flavor.. another one was Susan Tedeschi's new one its very mellow (as expected) but good IMO
I, for one, appreciate the discussion and your perspective, and would love to see more feedback from you about the 90% of stuff "we" do here that goes against what you've learned. The more we all know, the better decisions we can make about what's right for each of us to do individually. Without the information, well...it's just an uninformed decision, hardly a good way to go about it.
Most of it is mastering, such as mastering being destructive and why and how you should or should not use it.
I try to chime in anytime I have something I think I have something to add thats constructive. And with the recent heart prob's I have a little more time on my hands ::) as Im not able to work full time again just yet. thank god for friends and family.
-
+t matt for caring enough to take the time to make it sound as good as it can or as good as it sounded that night..
"As good as can be" is part of the rub for me. As good as can be for whose ears and brain, on what playback system, in what listening environment? I just received a recording from a fellow taper who applied a bit of HPF to a recording. And it sounds really, really good. Only to my ears and brain, on my playback system, in my listening environment, it sounds far more bass-shy than I prefer. (Which is one of the reasons I didn't apply a HPF in post to my recording.)
FWIW. Just an example of one of my thoughts earlier, and one that someone else made - without <a> the right knowledge, <b> proper tools, <c> a great ear, and <d> the right monitoring equipment, I think it's difficult to do well. And many tapers lack one or more of those critical elements (and that's not unique to tapers, I think many engineers lack one or more of those critical elements). I'm not suggesting the taper above did a poor job - it sounds excellent, but it's geared more towards his preferences than my own. Anyway, yet another thought on why I take a fairly hands-off approach to mastering.
-
+t matt for caring enough to take the time to make it sound as good as it can or as good as it sounded that night..
"As good as can be" is part of the rub for me. As good as can be for whose ears and brain, on what playback system, in what listening environment? I just received a recording from a fellow taper who applied a bit of HPF to a recording. And it sounds really, really good. Only to my ears and brain, on my playback system, in my listening environment, it sounds far more bass-shy than I prefer. (Which is one of the reasons I didn't apply a HPF in post to my recording.)
FWIW. Just an example of one of my thoughts earlier, and one that someone else made - without <a> the right knowledge, <b> proper tools, <c> a great ear, and <d> the right monitoring equipment, I think it's difficult to do well. And many tapers lack one or more of those critical elements (and that's not unique to tapers, I think many engineers lack one or more of those critical elements). I'm not suggesting the taper above did a poor job - it sounds excellent, but it's geared more towards his preferences than my own. Anyway, yet another thought on why I take a fairly hands-off approach to mastering.
I think its toooo anal about it at that point, I listened to my shows on a 5 different playback's ranging from (Including my stores 2004 ford work truck to a $2500+home playback) before I seed , simply for this reason. And I think a paragraphic Eq used correctly will deliver a show that tight ass bass (but is not crunchy) accross the board on almost any playback. Highs and Mid highs vary slightly for my ears.
A friend And I both hear the shows before its seeded so we can hear it on sperate playback's and many times before seeding. I may hear 10 mixes before I find one I like. But again I think it shouldnt be a race to get them out...
Id be intrested to hear a clip of it. that you hear as "bass shy" , just to get a feel . And do you know what your friend did ???
HPF (what did he use and how much and at what freq?)
-
I'm not interested in turning my recordings into uber-polished, perfect-sounding, exquisitely EQ'd masterpieces. But I agree that a bit of discretionary mastering can make a significant difference in the overall end result of the recording.
I should make another clarification here... I do mostly matrix and multitrack/matrix recordings and I personally DO want them to sound better than the original. I always try to get the feeling of being in a bubble with music all around you, or setting your chin on the stage and being more inside of the music than looking over it, if that makes sense. I do have a touch of purest in me though... I like the crowd, the room, the banter, and the natural ebb and flow of the show as the engineer or band responds to the crowd with more volume. Clink of the glasses at the bar, sound of a mic stand falling on stage... whatever! I want the whole experience there, just in a more paletable (to me) form. I don't want to sanitize my recordings but I also don't want anyone to hear seperate sources... just one that is a combination of the two (or more) originals. I agree most studio cds of recent days suck ass... I'm not going for that at all. Live is live and it isn't supposed to be perfect on any level.
When I do ambient I am a little different and a little more of a purest. There are MANY more qualified ambient recordists here than I, and I'm always trying to do better at that... that is part of why I always try to coax Skandlier to come record with me... ;D
Matt
-
Good thread.. This is a bit of a grey area. If you're willing to EQ to improve the sound, why worry about warm pre-amps at all? Want fat bass? Fatten it. Where do you stop?
Another concern.. Let's say I have 3 80's SRV masters. I EQ them using medicore 1990 tech and release them. Years later, the masters get lost in a fire. What source do we want floating around?
I use a Slim Devices Squeezebox for playback. One thing I'd like to see with that software is source specific EQ. Basically, I'd like to be able to add bass to some shows and reduce the highs on others and have those settings remembered for that show. Taken to the next level, you would be able to do real time parametric EQ at playback time on a show by show basis. The master never gets tweaked, etc..
-
Good thread.. This is a bit of a grey area. If you're willing to EQ to improve the sound, why worry about warm pre-amps at all? Want fat bass? Fatten it. Where do you stop?
For me, analog is king... bar none. The flavoring done in the analog realm (with good gear) is better than anything I can do in post IMHO. The hard part is knowing (hearing) what to do on site. I Love the eq in my ONYX mixer for instance, but I'm gun shy as hell with it. I've nailed it and I've choked with it... it's a crap shot at best.
Chris (VA_Taper) and I had a good email discussion along these lines a few weeks ago and he made a good point in that regard. The true blessing of quality gear is a low enough noise factor to afford yourself the ability to do extensive post work without adding audible noise to the final recording. He didn't say it quite that way but that was the intent. quality gear is more than a flavor. I'm sick of quoting him... he should be here for this one! Paging VA_Taper!
Matt
-
good thread..
I personally archive, seed, and listen to untouched masters.. no editing done whatsoever (unless the occasional resample) .. I generally like the way my tapes sound most of the time..
If I need to playback with some "eq", I just use the little treble/bass knobs on the playback unit, whatever that may be..
-
Thanks to all of you for this thread. I have more than once been lambasted for asking Q's about adding compression to classical. The purists' mentality which seems to (rightfully?) prevail here always shuns my tendancy to master things. As I don't really release or seed any of my stuff (classical) I tinker with it, because, frankly, it is more the mastering that draws my attention rather than the taping. I like taping fine, but it's the simple manipulation of the source that interests me, thus I can spend hours working w/ my recordings of live opera. My tapes are really done to give to my fellow singers with whom I am performing, and hell, they'll like anything I give them, so I don't need to worry about the purists mentality.
I DO use Wavelab 5 montages more and more, as all mastering in them is non-destructive. I usually will keep the source untouched, but seriously, you guys that do rock and louder shows w/ less dynamic range would be very hard pressed to tape some classical and be happy with your tapes, ESPECIALLY give the less than ideal circumstances I have to tape in (stealthed and balance problems between orch and singers). HELL YES, I use eq'ing, punchers, and L2!!! In doing so, I can (shudder) IMPROVE the live sound. There IS a reason why the majority of the POP artists are lipsynching so much of their shows....cuz it sounds BETTER on tape when they're not jiggling their tushes off in some shitty dance move. The same reasoning applies here too. WE have to stop being afraid to 'improve' our tapes.
Does anyone really bemoan the fact that the EXACT duplicate of Caruso's recordings might not be in circulation, or are they happy that they simply GOT him on 'tape?'
-
I'm sure I am just rehashing what has already been stated, but I do not have the time to read this whole thread right now.
I vote absolutely not. there is no need if your levels are adjuted properly. Much of todays gear can run very hot. Take advantage of that, because there will be sound you are missing if your levels are too low...even if you doctor it up afterwards.
-
Actually, there is noise introduced by the AD process and it is raised by normalizing after the fact.
-
Good thread.. This is a bit of a grey area. If you're willing to EQ to improve the sound, why worry about warm pre-amps at all? Want fat bass? Fatten it. Where do you stop?
Another concern.. Let's say I have 3 80's SRV masters. I EQ them using medicore 1990 tech and release them. Years later, the masters get lost in a fire. What source do we want floating around?
I use a Slim Devices Squeezebox for playback. One thing I'd like to see with that software is source specific EQ. Basically, I'd like to be able to add bass to some shows and reduce the highs on others and have those settings remembered for that show. Taken to the next level, you would be able to do real time parametric EQ at playback time on a show by show basis. The master never gets tweaked, etc..
I dont seem to have a problem with the Stock Ua-5 being too thin sounding by anymeans. It picks up plenty off bass at most of the shows I record, Hence why I EQ it in post.
I would say that your nuts for not keeping copies of the master both on and off site. But I dont see where that fits into this thread really ..
I do this now. its called presets via wavelab , which is linked to my home playback.
-
Actually, there is noise introduced by the AD process and it is raised by normalizing after the fact.
*sigh*
-
Actually, there is noise introduced by the AD process and it is raised by normalizing after the fact.
Or raised when you turn up the volume to compensate for the lower levels on the recording. 6 - 1/2 dozen... or no?
-
No difference after the fact but since the digital noise does not depend on the pre-amp gain (or noise) it is rasing the noise floor.
-
Actually, there is noise introduced by the AD process and it is raised by normalizing after the fact.
Or raised when you turn up the volume to compensate for the lower levels on the recording. 6 - 1/2 dozen... or no?
this has been My point over and over...
-
Actually, there is noise introduced by the AD process and it is raised by normalizing after the fact.
Or raised when you turn up the volume to compensate for the lower levels on the recording. 6 - 1/2 dozen... or no?
this has been My point over and over...
This may be a factor, maybe not...
Where does a solid state amp or tube amp produce the most noise? Lower volumes or higher? You could consider the inherent noise of the playback gear into the equation as well.
When you turn up the volume to compensate, you're also amplifying all the inducted noise from playback gear (preamp/cables/amp), no?
-
Yes, I agree turning it up later makes the same noise power as normalizing.
I'm just trying to make the point that normalizing does raise the noise floor and introduces noise in the recording that can't be removed. It's not the same thing as cranking the pre-amp during the recording because of the constant components. Not trying to make anyone upset.
This may not be related but I remember a problem that is caused by total noise power and not signal to noise ratio. Gotta get out some books tonight though because that may be realted to wireless instead of DSP just can't remember atm.
-
Yes, I agree turning it up later makes the same noise power as normalizing.
I'm just trying to make the point that normalizing does raise the noise floor and introduces noise in the recording that can't be removed. It's not the same thing as cranking the pre-amp during the recording because of the constant components. Not trying to make anyone upset.
This may not be related but I remember a problem that is caused by total noise power and not signal to noise ratio. Gotta get out some books tonight though because that may be realted to wireless instead of DSP just can't remember atm.
What's upsetting is that we went through this already, at considerable effort, earlier in the thread.
What do you mean "introduces noise in the recording that can't be removed." That's totally not true.
-
For any system:
F_12 = F_1 + (F_2 - 1)/G_1
where
F_n = S:N_in/S:N_out
read: overall noise figure = noise figure of the device in question + (noise figure of the measurement - 1)/(gain of the device in question)
Basically an amplifier introduces its own noise into the signal (because G_1 is relatively small) as well as amplifying the incoming signal (along with whatever noise is present). This means that the fewer amplifying components you run through, the better the S:N of the system.
Not sure if that's what you were looking for Riff Raff, but hope it helped.
-
I read the whole thread and I agree with the 2nd post. Don't always mess with it to get out the last 0.5dB. Is that the solution you came to?
I think it's an interesting problem with lots of variables. Some cool new ones are coming out now as far as "ideal" playback and noise from different systems. Matt's point is the same one I was trying to make. Get the best signal at the beginning of the chain and your noise at playback will be less.
Here is another part of the problem that isn't totally solved yet in my mind. Digitizing the signal introduces quantization errors. I believe that chainging the gain introduces more quantization errors which adds more noise. I'll look up the math to see if I'm right or not but it's some pretty dusty stuff.
How about the differences in noise in the digital realm vs the analog realm? When you send higher power noise in the digital side of your playback is it really the same as amplifying later on the analog side? I don't really think so.
I think with all these factors there is probably a mathematical answer as to what point it would be best to normalize and at what point you are really introducing more problems.
-
Thanks to all of you for this thread. I have more than once been lambasted for asking Q's about adding compression to classical. The purists' mentality which seems to (rightfully?) prevail here always shuns my tendancy to master things. As I don't really release or seed any of my stuff (classical) I tinker with it, because, frankly, it is more the mastering that draws my attention rather than the taping. I like taping fine, but it's the simple manipulation of the source that interests me, thus I can spend hours working w/ my recordings of live opera. My tapes are really done to give to my fellow singers with whom I am performing, and hell, they'll like anything I give them, so I don't need to worry about the purists mentality.
I DO use Wavelab 5 montages more and more, as all mastering in them is non-destructive. I usually will keep the source untouched, but seriously, you guys that do rock and louder shows w/ less dynamic range would be very hard pressed to tape some classical and be happy with your tapes, ESPECIALLY give the less than ideal circumstances I have to tape in (stealthed and balance problems between orch and singers). HELL YES, I use eq'ing, punchers, and L2!!! In doing so, I can (shudder) IMPROVE the live sound. There IS a reason why the majority of the POP artists are lipsynching so much of their shows....cuz it sounds BETTER on tape when they're not jiggling their tushes off in some shitty dance move. The same reasoning applies here too. WE have to stop being afraid to 'improve' our tapes.
Does anyone really bemoan the fact that the EXACT duplicate of Caruso's recordings might not be in circulation, or are they happy that they simply GOT him on 'tape?'
This is all very interesting stuff. My classical sensibilites are of two minds, and always have been (even before I got "into" recording my own performances as i have in the last year or so): 1. Live, warts and all - let us hear it the way it WAS without cleaning it up or "improving" it 2. Clean studio recording, heavily mastered making it sound "as good as possible". Both have their virtues, but over the years I've definitely decided that I greatly prefer live, no matter WHAT.
Which begs the question, "How much compressing/limiting/mastering is reasonable?" Well, it depends. There have been times when I'd have given a body part for hard limiter/compressor just so I didn't wind up with blown out tapes (there are some classical pieces for which it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to set a successful "all purpose" level - the Verdi Requiem springs to mind, with its supersofts followed by BLARINGLY loud brass). Even with a good guesstimate for levels for the "normal" parts of the piece, the softs are barely audible and the brass stings are off the scale (fortunately, with one exception I wasn't singing during either of those passages so I still got hte parts of ME that I wanted to get cleanly!) But generally, I guess I sitll go for "highest FIDELITY" rather than "highest QUALITY" and try to do as little as possible to my own recordings - for the ones taped live in the house (which have been FAR more successful than my efforts at a "studio" recording), it's usually been little more than boosting the volume (very occasionally compressing slightly and THEN boosting hte volume). For the "studio" recording I made of myself - with mixed (possibly even limited) success, I wound up having to add some acoustic ( the preset reverbs in wavlab and soundforge were a nice tool to help) and then twiddled with the EQs until I liked what I heard. I make NO claims for expertise - it was entirely done by the seat of my pants and to see what I could come up with; an exercise I set myself as much as anything else.
I DID have the good fortune to sit in on a mastering "lesson" earlier in the year, and I learned on helluva a lot, not least of which the fact that I am such a lowly and ignorant noob about what to do and how to do it that it's kind of scary! But it was fascinating to watch an experienced pro engineer at work, especially since he was willing to answer sooooooooo many questions and demonstrate how he would handle certain situations. I will say, however, that with three of us involved - all professional musicians with excellent ears and a good grasp of both the musical and technical side of things (well, in my case, modest grasp of the latter, perhaps, but certainly better than the average bear) - there were three varied opinions on each and every sound we played/heard/tweaked. Was an eye-opener, actually, to see how differently we heard/interpreted the same extracts; what one of us thought was "just right" another thought "too much" and the third "not enough". Goldilocks city....
Anyway, not sure I'm adding much to the discussion except another shout from the classical peanut gallery. I guess my bottom line is that mastering should be kind of like retouching a photograph: nothing wrong with enhancing what's already there, but it still needs to "look like the person really did". Enhance, rather than surgically alter :) And "how much is enough/too much" is very VERY hard to define!
-
Yes, I agree turning it up later makes the same noise power as normalizing.
I'm just trying to make the point that normalizing does raise the noise floor and introduces noise in the recording that can't be removed. It's not the same thing as cranking the pre-amp during the recording because of the constant components. Not trying to make anyone upset.
This was my original point. This seems intuitive to me. Regarding S:N, there is during amplification a certian S:N ratio associated with this step. After a recording has been made this ratio is fixed and is relative to the signal strength of the audio. The situation that I was thinking of was that if a recording is made at -18 dB ceiling and the noise floor is at -98 dB (or whatever) when you normalize the audio portion to 0 dB you also raise the noise in the recording to a level higher than it would have been if you had set the preamp to a 0 dB ceiling.
I am making sense? I think so.
-
Does anyone really bemoan the fact that the EXACT duplicate of Caruso's recordings might not be in circulation, or are they happy that they simply GOT him on 'tape?'
If you move your mic stand over 10' to the left you will get different sound. back, forward, up down whatever... for better or worse this will change the sound of your recording. Same with configs and gear... there is no true perfectly acurate representation of the sound in the venue. I understand the purest view, but to me it isn't about the recording it is about the performance, the crowd and the room. I think the archival of the original recording is important from the stand point that new skils, technology or new technique may allow you to produce a more pleasing recording in the future. However, making the best out of your recording with properly applied mastering techniques is only a benefit to thoes who may listen and enjoy... the person hearing your recording wants it to be as good as possible, not how it sounded from your seat, with your gear, blah blah blah. If your recording is for you to enjoy (as most should be) then enjoy them however you want.
As for normalizing... if you have 80%music and 20% noise, and you increase the levels of your recording in post, you still have 80%music and 20% noise. To do it on the playback will add additional noise due to the analog aspects of the playback. Maybe the $10,000 home system suffers this less than the stock car stereo but isn't this really true regardless? I agree if you are peaking at -.5db you shouldn't mess with it, but if you are 2 or 3 db down that is a huge difference. In order for an amplifier to produce an additional 1db in sound you have to double the power used! That is huge at higher volume levels even with the cleanest playback pre's!
Bar none... when talking about normalizing the best way to produce a clean recording is to push your levels up to whery you want them when recording. I'm sure we all agree on that one.
Matt
-
While I agree that there is a small amount of noise that is constant (from A/D, etc) and there might be some s/n efficiency which is lost when gain is increased in post, I don't think it is significant (especially for PA/rock recordings). Obviously, we need to measure this because 'hand waving' alone isn't going to settle this much.
Let's say I set the mics up in the basement and record ambient in a quiet house.. I run 20dB of gain in one channel and 35 dB of gain in the other. I raise the gain of the 20dB channel to match the peak of the 35 dB channel in post. Then measure the noise floor in each channel and compare. Seems like that would provide some real data. Where this method gets ugly (and may not work) is making sure the mics are equal, etc. I suppose the 'control' would be comparing the noise floor on each mic at the same amount of preamp gain. The 722 is probably good for this test since it reports the gain setting in dB.
The other gotcha.. Some pre-amps are very noisy as the gain is cranked. The UA5 seems to get disproportionally noisy at higher gain. So does the minime. I don't know for a fact that the noise is disproportional up there. It may just be a high noise floor to begin with that just gets more noticable. The pre in the 722 is much quieter. I hear the V3 is very quiet but I haven't played with one.
-
An experiment sounds like a good idea. I'm not trying to drive home a point but I would like to know just for the knowing. :hmmm:
The method you describe sounds like a good approach.
-
The other gotcha.. Some pre-amps are very noisy as the gain is cranked. The UA5 seems to get disproportionally noisy at higher gain. So does the minime. I don't know for a fact that the noise is disproportional up there. It may just be a high noise floor to begin with that just gets more noticable. The pre in the 722 is much quieter. I hear the V3 is very quiet but I haven't played with one.
this is true with stock/digi ua5's There is tons of noise at higher gain settings. It is better after doug or busman is done with them though. This is actually a good point. For a very quiet recording with some pre's it may be much better to normalize in post than to push the levels.
I think your test sounds like a good idea. make sure you turn off your furnace and flouresant lights etc.
Matt
-
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.
Never raise noisefloor, especially prior to dithering, is the point I think.
-
And I think a paragraphic Eq used correctly will deliver a show that tight ass bass (but is not crunchy) accross the board on almost any playback.
Tight bass is much more than the levels across the spectrum.
Phase, reflections, etc. all play significant parts in what you hear.
Level bass, yes, tight with clear attack and articulation is another ball of cheese.
For another dissenting opinion, I think that every listener should EQ for themselves to their ears and system.
Small exceptions for cautious EQ for ORTF or directional mic proximity and really useless stuff like wind-rumble.
To put it another way, I put my recordings out pretty close to raw.
You fix 'em, I'm off to record something else.
My future vision is DVD-A, SACD, and CD all become obsolete and everyone plays back through a DAPS (digital audio playback station) and has DSP ability for many effects, compensations, and EQ methods.
For my own playback, I have no balance nor bass nor treble controls.
So I sometimes will EQ (even) studio recordings and rerecord them for my own playback.
One of my favorite "tricks" is to rerecord DVD-As through a tube linestage to 16/44.1 wavs and make a sonically enhanced CD.
Back to the thread, I only normalize recordings that are very quiet.
Compression is not necessarily bad. On some recordings it makes things sound coherent and connected.
Use your ears to deceide what works for you !
Rule of thumb... less is more.
BTW, great thread !