Topic: A couple of hot spots during a recording got 0.0 db can it be saved

[beatkilla]

Music is all about dynamics,why would anyone use the Normalize function.

[Brian Skalinder]

Music is all about dynamics,why would anyone use the Normalize function.

While RMS normalization may reduce dynamic range, peak normalization doesn't.  Most apps I've used - including Audacity - employ peak normalization.

There's a fairly strong bias on TS against reduction of dynamic range.  Reducing dynamic range isn't always a bad thing.  For example, if one only has a couple (or a whole slew) of very high peaks from a particularly loud "whoop" or clap by the crowd, then reducing the peaks (whether with compression or volume envelope) doesn't take away from the dynamics of the music itself.  Or if one's running on stage and there's an especially loud drum kit hit (or multiple hits scattered throughout the recording) that spikes levels, bringing it down in line with the rest of the recording doesn't really take away from the general dynamic range of the performance since those spikes are outliers, to so speak.  Or if one's primary listening device or environment isn't suitable for full dynamic range, reducing the dynamic range can make for easier / better listening with that device or in that environment.  Etc.

[bluntforcetrauma]

Music is all about dynamics,why would anyone use the Normalize function.

While RMS normalization may reduce dynamic range, peak normalization doesn't.  Most apps I've used - including Audacity - employ peak normalization.

There's a fairly strong bias on TS against reduction of dynamic range.  Reducing dynamic range isn't always a bad thing.  For example, if one only has a couple (or a whole slew) of very high peaks from a particularly loud "whoop" or clap by the crowd, then reducing the peaks (whether with compression or volume envelope) doesn't take away from the dynamics of the music itself.  Or if one's running on stage and there's an especially loud drum kit hit (or multiple hits scattered throughout the recording) that spikes levels, bringing it down in line with the rest of the recording doesn't really take away from the general dynamic range of the performance since those spikes are outliers, to so speak.  Or if one's primary listening device or environment isn't suitable for full dynamic range, reducing the dynamic range can make for easier / better listening with that device or in that environment.  Etc.

so is there a chance that i should try NOT to normalize, but still use something like L3 ultramaximizer to shape the sound?

yes sometimes its just a couple of peaks, hot spots, so i did not normalize that particular set, but did put it through the L3--it came out very well.

I thought i should always normalize to bring up the rest of the music, i thought it gave a kind of boost without losing any dynamics

I am medium at this ( not new) so any more info on normalizing would be helpful.


I know if i were to normalize, that is done first in the process. I usually normalize to 97% to leave a little headroom

what do others feel about normalizing.

And yes i do try to get the highest recording levels as possible during a show, but even so it does seem overall a distant recording without being able to at a plug in like L3 ultramaximzer.

sorry for the randomness of thoughts

please advise

[anr]

I'd go with Brian's advice.  It's simple, concise, makes sense and is a no-brainer. 

[JWard]

I'm with Brian, too.

Here's my philosophy:
With a perfect mix in the room, perfectly placed and perfectly configured microphones, and perfectly set levels on your microphone preamplifier, no EQ, compression, normalization, etc will be needed (or at least very very little).  However, this is almost never the case...  Although we can set up our microphones and make a recording of exactly what it sounds like where those mics are sitting, that recording may not be a great representation of the music that was played.  The microphones may be placed in a location where the sound isn't great (at the back), where there are vast differences between the sound levels of different instruments (drums and keys at the stage lip), where there is something being recorded in addition to the music (drunk loudmouths, loud clappers, loud talkers, A/C vent, fans), or where the sound and mix is simply different than what you are hearing (sound engineers create the mix in the room to be listened to at head level, not 15 feet in the air...the lack of all those heads disrupting, diffusing, and absorbing certain frequencies means the mix and sound is different 15 feet up than it is at head level...sometimes better, sometimes worse, but almost always different in some way).

A recording made in the live environment may be a great, or even perfect representation of what it sounded like in the location that the recording was made, but that may or may not make for a great representation of the music was played and how it should be heard.  And this is where we often find ourselves wondering how much post-production we should do to a recording.  This is a personal choice, and I don't think you should do anything where the result is overly noticeable, but I'll accept some post-production on a recording if it improves the listening experience without killing the music.  That's the trick.  I don't see this as being that far from mixing AUD and SBD, or multitracking....nowhere in the room did a live show sound like the results of an AUD+SBD mix, but we make such recordings all the time and when done well we like the results because of the improved listening experience, without killing the live feeling of the recording.