Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: cashandkerouac on December 01, 2011, 01:05:42 PM
-
i'm curious about peoples' opinions of using a hard limiter vs. normalization in post production. my assumption is that normalization is a "safe" way of boosting the volume while also preserving the integrity of the original WAV file. with a limiter i'm able to get more of a db boost for the quieter portions of a recording, but the peaks get "chopped" to eliminate clipping and distortion. any negative consequences applying a limiter rather than normalization in post-production? thanks in advance.
-
any negative consequences applying a limiter rather than normalization in post-production?
Limiting and normalization are very different beasts, so generally it's not a question of doing one or the other. They both have their place, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.
If you're happy with the dynamic range but simply want to boost levels, peak normalization is appropriate.
If for some reason you want to reduce the dynamic range -- for example, a portion of the recording is *much* louder than the rest of the recording (a spike, series of spikes, continuous section, etc.), preventing you from raising the levels across the entire recording -- then limiting (or, for that matter, compression, or volume envelope) is an option.
Potential negative effects of limiting (or compression): it can audibly and negatively impact the sound quality of the limited (or compressed) portion of the recording. This can result in a sort of crackling / popping (similar to the sound of clipping), pumping & breathing (typically on longer portions), a dull / 2-dimensional flattening of the sound, etc. Whether and to what degree limiting or compression negatively impacts sound quality depends on the original source material, the quality of the limiter / compressor, and the settings applied.
-
i've also been reading the thread about parallel compression, which seems to be a strategy that addresses my question. i'm essentially trying to increase the levels of the quieter parts of a recording without increasing the peaks. i've previously accomplished this goal manually, but it's a very labor intensive process. lately i've been experimenting with the limiter and normalization function in Adobe audition. i like the results i've been getting with the limiter, but am looking for a solution that won't chop the peaks.
-
Generally, I'd suggest the following order of dymamic manipulation, but you don't always need to do all of them-
1st- Tame any wild, out of control or peaks or sections. Usually by reducing those in level manually with short volume envelopes for whistles, screams, PA overloads, feedbacks, etcetera, or even redrawing the waveform for errant pops, clicks, claps, balloon pops, shotgun blasts, etcetera.. or maybe by using something like a pop/click remover tool, or a carefully set limiter that only effects those out of control peaks and not the music (this step reduces the overall dynamic range buy taking care of just the topmost end of the range- only the loudest peaks, allowing you to raise the total range later). Listen to those loud parts and peaks to make sure you aren't doing more harm than good.
2nd- If you want to increase the level of the low sections compared to the louder ones, use compression, volume envelopes or try the parallel compression techniques- which can also raise the percieved low level details (this reduces the overall dynamics more evenly over their entire range). Listen to the body of the music, both the quiet and loud sections, this step effects the main portion of the dynamic range and pretty much all of the music, which is why manual volume evelopes or parallel compression can be more forgiving and easier to get sounding good than regular compression.
3rd- If the resulting file peaks well below 0 dBFS, peak normalize or manually add gain (this shifts the existing dynamics up to the top of the available range without otherwise altering it). This should have no sonic effect other than increasing the level. It's a good idea to not try and push it all the way to 0dBFS, but leave a small margin of safety of -0.5 dB or so. Some shoot for -0.3 dB, others leave their files peaking at -6 or -10dB and just turn up the playback volume. There are good arguments either way.
-
Generally, I'd suggest the following order of dymamic manipulation, but you don't always need to do all of them-
1st- Tame any wild, out of control or peaks or sections. Usually by reducing those in level manually with short volume envelopes for whistles, screams, PA overloads, feedbacks, etcetera, or even redrawing the waveform for errant pops, clicks, claps, balloon pops, shotgun blasts, etcetera.. or maybe by using something like a pop/click remover tool, or a carefully set limiter that only effects those out of control peaks and not the music (this step reduces the overall dynamic range buy taking care of just the topmost end of the range- only the loudest peaks, allowing you to raise the total range later). Listen to those loud parts and peaks to make sure you aren't doing more harm than good.
2nd- If you want to increase the level of the low sections compared to the louder ones, use compression, volume envelopes or try the parallel compression techniques- which can also raise the percieved low level details (this reduces the overall dynamics more evenly over their entire range). Listen to the body of the music, both the quiet and loud sections, this step effects the main portion of the dynamic range and pretty much all of the music, which is why manual volume evelopes or parallel compression can be more forgiving and easier to get sounding good than regular compression.
3rd- If the resulting file peaks well below 0 dBFS, peak normalize or manually add gain (this shifts the existing dynamics up to the top of the available range without otherwise altering it). This should have no sonic effect other than increasing the level. It's a good idea to not try and push it all the way to 0dBFS, but leave a small margin of safety of -0.5 dB or so. Some shoot for -0.3 dB, others leave their files peaking at -6 or -10dB and just turn up the playback volume. There are good arguments either way.
thanks GB. that all sounds like very good advice.
-
i'm curious about peoples' opinions of using a hard limiter vs. normalization in post production. my assumption is that normalization is a "safe" way of boosting the volume while also preserving the integrity of the original WAV file. with a limiter i'm able to get more of a db boost for the quieter portions of a recording, but the peaks get "chopped" to eliminate clipping and distortion. any negative consequences applying a limiter rather than normalization in post-production? thanks in advance.
What GB said.
I also like this. Does parallel comping by itself. Sounds transparent to me.
http://www.elysia.com/software/alpha-compressor/introduction/
-
I use both HardLimiter and Normalization when editing...often times I will use the Hard Limit function more often because i am able to boost the levels higher...even though that equates to some compression, I tend to like the end result better as i can crank the volume more. I never do anything too drastic though, usually just 1-2 dB over where my levels would have been if I just normalized the track if that makes sense.
-
I use both HardLimiter and Normalization when editing...often times I will use the Hard Limit function more often because i am able to boost the levels higher...even though that equates to some compression, I tend to like the end result better as i can crank the volume more. I never do anything too drastic though, usually just 1-2 dB over where my levels would have been if I just normalized the track if that makes sense.
ditto. I typically limit about 3db out of my final post-edits normalized audio, which puts me around my target rate of just over -17db RMS. The better the limiter, the more you can get away with without hearing it. I found I can hear the one in Audacity after about 2db of reduction, but it has a "soft limiter" function of sorts which is sort of interesting.
-
thanks again for the very helpful feedback. i'm also using the limiter more than the normalization function. seems to yield a better result as long as i don't over-do it.
-
thanks again for the very helpful feedback. i'm also using the limiter more than the normalization function. seems to yield a better result as long as i don't over-do it.
clutch :coolguy:
-
thanks again for the very helpful feedback. i'm also using the limiter more than the normalization function. seems to yield a better result as long as i don't over-do it.
clutch :coolguy:
8) ;D Good job!
My recordings are so "on-point' and naturally balanced that I have YET to EQ/Compress/edit my mk41>sax and ca14>9100 recordings ;) I like the best stuff on earth that can reasonably produce killer results in just about any situation. Altho, I'm quite lucky living near "da burgh", because all of our venues, for the most part, sound above average/excellent ::P ;D 8) :) And I'm ALWAYS FOB/DFC[hope I didnt just jynx myself] :P :(
-
I use both HardLimiter and Normalization when editing....
I can't understand why one would use both. Does your limiter not have a way to increase gain?
-
I use both HardLimiter and Normalization when editing....
I can't understand why one would use both. Does your limiter not have a way to increase gain?
So do, some don't. Audacity's comes to mind as one that limits but doesn't do the makeup gain afterward to compensate.
-
I use both HardLimiter and Normalization when editing....
I can't understand why one would use both. Does your limiter not have a way to increase gain?
Not at the same time...I meant sometimes I will just normalize a recording...other times I will go the hard limit route.