Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: rms normalization  (Read 2136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vegaspunx

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 52
rms normalization
« on: November 17, 2008, 09:07:13 PM »
is this ok to use i have been trying to make a recording i did sound the best possible and out of everything i have tried this produced the best most even sound imo

Offline unclelouie

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Gender: Male
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2008, 09:28:47 PM »
simply put: post editing consists of a lot more than just normalizing. if you want your recording to sound better you may need to do some EQ work for example. normalizing is basically about raising the overall volume of the recording. most people simply normalize the peak value not RMS (root mean square) to something like -0.1dB or -0.5dB

unclelouie.tapes_at_gmail.com

Offline vegaspunx

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2008, 09:59:49 PM »
simply put: post editing consists of a lot more than just normalizing. if you want your recording to sound better you may need to do some EQ work for example. normalizing is basically about raising the overall volume of the recording. most people simply normalize the peak value not RMS (root mean square) to something like -0.1dB or -0.5dB



yes i understand what you mean i'm new to doing audio and wasn't sure if this was acceptable within the trading community dause i thought i read somewhere that normalization cause the freq analysis to look strange

Offline unclelouie

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Gender: Male
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2008, 10:16:04 PM »
peak normalizing is a pretty standard practice, but RMS is not. generally, when RMS normalization is done, the idea is to raise the average loudness to a specific level (ex: -6dB). This will most likely cause the peaks to clip, so usually the software will compress the signal, or allow it to clip. In either case, the results are undesirable.  Over compressing audio is an easy mistake to make and although the source sounds more even in the end, you lose the dynamics of the music. 

More often than not, people will use a little bit of compression to lower the peaks before they apply a peak normalization, it's a way to give yourself more "headroom" and is an acceptable practice - particularly if you're recording rock music.

I'm going to try to attach a screenshot of the project I'm working on now. You'll see what I mean about the peak values and the dynamics of the music. Hopefully your project looks similar.
unclelouie.tapes_at_gmail.com

Offline Javier Cinakowski

  • !! Downhill From Here !!
  • (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4319
  • Gender: Male
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2008, 10:29:58 PM »
Quote
simply put: post editing consists of a lot more than just normalizing.

Great, helpful posts unclelouie.... 

I agree with everything in both of your posts except the quoted above.   IMO, post editing of ambient stereo field recordings should consist of nothing more than normalizing.  Less is more when capturing in the diffuse field.

In the studio one is capturing the instuments and recreating the image in post, often needing more than just normalizing/amplification.  When capturing a diffuse source, the image and sound are caught on tape from the start.  IMO no editing is the best way to preserve the natural capture of a stereo field recording.   Now granted a little EQ, compression or your favorite plugin could improve the source, but you better know what you are doing.   I would much rather have a raw recording than one that was pissed with by anything less than a professional......

 :)
Audio-Technica AT8022-> Tascam DR-100mkIII

Offline vegaspunx

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2008, 10:35:59 PM »
Quote
simply put: post editing consists of a lot more than just normalizing.

Great, helpful posts unclelouie.... 

I agree with everything in both of your posts except the quoted above.   IMO, post editing of ambient stereo field recordings should consist of nothing more than normalizing.  Less is more when capturing in the diffuse field.

In the studio one is capturing the instuments and recreating the image in post, often needing more than just normalizing/amplification.  When capturing a diffuse source, the image and sound are caught on tape from the start.  IMO no editing is the best way to preserve the natural capture of a stereo field recording.   Now granted a little EQ, compression or your favorite plugin could improve the source, but you better know what you are doing.   I would much rather have a raw recording than one that was pissed with by anything less than a professional......

 :)

see this is what i figured i may come accross when trading/ uploading recording i'm using magix audio cleaning lab rightt now because it was recommended to me since i'm pretty much clueless when i comes to editing audio

Offline unclelouie

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Gender: Male
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2008, 10:43:42 PM »
Ah yes, for ambiance recording I too rely on nothing more than normalization. Although I rarely do ambiance, fireworks and family dinners are a favorite of mine.

Also, dynamic processing for coincident recordings can mess with the stereo image - I learned this the hard way.

I think it's also important to note that the playback system depends on how much processing should be done. Raw tapes sound much better on hi-fi systems.
unclelouie.tapes_at_gmail.com

Offline Javier Cinakowski

  • !! Downhill From Here !!
  • (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4319
  • Gender: Male
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2008, 10:48:16 PM »
I love fireworks and dinners too good Sir!    8)
Audio-Technica AT8022-> Tascam DR-100mkIII

Offline vegaspunx

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2008, 11:11:37 PM »
well thanks for the replies this is a 24 bit recording how would i make 16 bit or should i leave it 24 bit? i was going to ul it to a certain torrent site

Offline unclelouie

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Gender: Male
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2008, 11:52:06 PM »
i'm not familiar with your software, but you need to use a process called dither. Don't make the mistake of saving it as 16-bit without dithering first.
unclelouie.tapes_at_gmail.com

Roving Sign

  • Guest
  • (0)
Re: rms normalization
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2008, 09:49:19 AM »
Dont be afraid to try some "manual RMS normalization" (thats what I call it)

Sometimes you can find 3-4 places where there might be a vocal peak or drum hit...manually reduce those peaks, and then normalize. You'll get a few more db of volume out of the recording...

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.05 seconds with 36 queries.
© 2002-2021 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF