Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: Bdifr78 on June 20, 2005, 01:42:17 AM
-
Ok so I am just curious. Do most of you normalize your recordings before tracking/burning/seeding?
I understand what it does and what the pros and cons are for the quality of the recording, but I am just wondering what most people do and what people's opinions are about this.
Thanks,
Joe
-
if i am going to seed it, i try not to... most people prefer the wav to be unaltered for bt's
for personal use... its whatever makes you happy.
-
Normalizing doesn't do anything to the 'quality' correct? It only raises the overall level.
-Keivn
-
I guess it's better to "masterize" a little your recording before tracking, seeding or even trading.
I use to raise a few db one of the two channels to have them at the same levels, then I apply a parametric eq., L3 multimaximizer and a high limiter. Believe me, the sound quality increases.
Anyway, I use to keep the whole wav unmastered, for if requested.
-
I tend to ride the levels closely at the beginning of the show, keeping peaks as close to 0db as possible. When I suceed, there is no need to normalize. However, if I ever, for whatever reason, have a show where the peaks are down 6db or more I normalize. Any digital artifacts that result from normalization are bound to be less bothersome than noise during playback anyway.
-Noah
-
I try to keep my levels high as I record the show, so I usually don't normalize. The only time I use it is when I know that the cd will be used in a portable cd player or my car.
-
I usually normalize, and I am happy with the result ;D
-
I NEVER normalize. I will raise the gain of an entire recording to 0.1 dB. I rarely do any song to song gain changes, but have done so with recordings that warrant it. For crowd originated spikes, I usually draw the line where the clapping or whistling I want to reduce is in between songs I will do it( alter levels), if it is during the music, I will not.
-
I do, but sparingly...only if the original recording has really low levels (like Noah said).
A question for those of you who DO normalize...I see a lot of info files that say something like "normalized to 97%" - why is this? Why not go all the way to 100%?
-
Well, anyone tapes, records and masterizes as they want. BUt I think it's better to record slightly down, so you are prevented from CLIPPING.
You can always rise the levels, normalize, compress, or whatever you want. But I never record at the limit of clipping, because If my record gets distorted, It's a mess, and It hardly can be restored from this clipping. Otherside, a low recorded show can be raised to 0 db. SO you can enjoy w/o clipping.
-
i always run my v3 hot, probably get between 4-5 clips a show, nothing major, just a quick clip and i've never once noticed it in playback.
edit: not to mention, normalizing is just an extra step in post that i'd prefer not to do.
-
I always normalize to 0db afterward. Never noticed any negative results from doing so (no noticeable noise floor or anything). Out of curiosity, what's an L3 Multimaximizer and what does it do?
-
before i got the v3, i had no idea how hot or cold my levels really were on the JB3... so i would then, but not that i own a V3, i have yet to normalize any recordings.
-
i always run my v3 hot, probably get between 4-5 clips a show, nothing major, just a quick clip and i've never once noticed it in playback.
edit: not to mention, normalizing is just an extra step in post that i'd prefer not to do.
I tend to ride hot myself with the v3.
I get the peak indicator going throughout the show.Yet afterwards when I run the gain feature of wavelab it generally shows 0db as the top peak. I wish there was another indicator showing +1db or something on the v3 so I know if I am really over or just hitting 0.
Unless I am running conservative, I don't increase the gain on the recording.
I have had to do it only once so far.
-
If my music peaks are are @ -3dB or less I will run the waves ultramaximizer, and note it in the txt file.
-
I usually run my levels kinda low. Most of the time I even out the two channels to come close to matching db. Then I amplify the whole recording so my peaks are at 0db.
Doesn't normailzing eliminate the dynamic range of a recording quite a bit, so everything is close to the same volume?
-
I usually run my levels kinda low. Most of the time I even out the two channels to come close to matching db. Then I amplify the whole recording so my peaks are at 0db.
Doesn't normailzing eliminate the dynamic range of a recording quite a bit, so everything is close to the same volume?
Normalizing doesn't change the dynamic range at all.
-
I think it's better to record slightly down, so you are prevented from CLIPPING.
But if you record at low levels you get lower signal/noise ratio, right? Then there should be some compromise between avoiding clipping and too low levels.
Normalizing doesn't do anything to the 'quality' correct? It only raises the overall level.
As I understand normalization is not a lossless process. You have 16 bits per sample, and each time you change the volume in software it recalculates the file and there must be some rounding errors. For a one time normalization the quality loss should be negligible though.
-
I usually run my levels kinda low. Most of the time I even out the two channels to come close to matching db. Then I amplify the whole recording so my peaks are at 0db.
Doesn't normailzing eliminate the dynamic range of a recording quite a bit, so everything is close to the same volume?
Normalizing doesn't change the dynamic range at all.
Correct. It's recording a low level that reduces the available dynamic range. If you don't use the dynamic range available to you, it's forever lost. Normalizing doesn't reduce the dynamic range, but it can reduce S/N ratio by up to about 1.7 dB (due to rounding) if I remember correctly. If you are lucky enough that normalizing is accomplished by mulitplication by an integer power of 2, then you lose nothing in S/N ratio since there is never any rounding. (Mulitiplication by an integer power of 2 is the same as adding an integer multiple of 6.0206 dB gain.) When you multiply by 1.5 (same as adding 3.52 dB of gain), you get the worst degradation in S/N ratio due to rounding. Of course, it gets worse than that when you multiply by less than 1, but we're talking about increasing gain here, not decreasing gain. Decreasing gain will always compromise both S/N ratio and dynamic range.
-
If you are lucky enough that normalizing is accomplished by mulitplication by an integer power of 2, then you lose nothing in S/N ratio since there is never any rounding.
Do you mean it's better to rise the gain by 6 dB instead of normalization? If I have peaks lower than 6 dB then should I just multiply the signal by 2? That won't be normalization to 100%, but to a some percent close to that and leave the same s/n ratio?
I'm not sure I get your point. Lets say I have S/N ratio at 60 dB according to my recorder specs. I get some constant noise at that level. Now I record at low levels with peaks say at -12 dB. Now my signal to noise ratio is 12 to 60, which is less than when I record at high levels (like 0 to 60). Then I gain the signal, and I gain the noise too. Or am I completely wrong here?
-
:crazy: aaaccckkk!!
:head spins:
I run hot levels, so that I don't have to learn math.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If you are lucky enough that normalizing is accomplished by mulitplication by an integer power of 2, then you lose nothing in S/N ratio since there is never any rounding.
Do you mean it's better to rise the gain by 6 dB instead of normalization? If I have peaks lower than 6 dB then should I just multiply the signal by 2? That won't be normalization to 100%, but to a some percent close to that and leave the same s/n ratio?
I doubt that doing this (normalizing by integer powers of two) in an attempt to keep the same s/n ratio will make any real-world audible difference from normalizing by a non integer multiple of two.
In fact, if your peaks are less than -6dB, I would guess that if you are going to normalize, the "loudness" benefits from normalizing all the way up to 0dB would outweigh the benefits of limiting your normalization factor to some integer number. Just thinking out loud here though, I don't know for sure.
-
mostly, and im not talking, CLIPPING, but hitting 0db on thje v3 means im maximizing my dynamic range and also my volume for that recording
IF i do any editing anymore, its a gain change rather than a normalize!
-
Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does. I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file. As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.
So what the hell is it?
Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe
-
Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does. I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file. As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.
So what the hell is it?
Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe
I always thought of it as basically a gain or volume change, I always used a "peak normalize" which I thought meant take the loudest peak, and increase the volume of the overall passage so the peak then hits some certain value (for example I used to peak normalize to -0.02 dB in sound forge, just under 0dB).
Never thought there was compression associated with this process.
???
-
Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does. I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file. As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.
So what the hell is it?
Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe
I always thought of it as basically a gain or volume change, I always used a "peak normalize" which I thought meant take the loudest peak, and increase the volume of the overall passage so the peak then hits some certain value (for example I used to peak normalize to -0.02 dB in sound forge, just under 0dB).
Never thought there was compression associated with this process.
???
So why do they give you different options for volume and normalization on Sound Forge? That would imply that there has gotta be something different about it.
-
basically all normalization does is find the loudest sample of your recording and raises the whole level of the recording so that point is at 0dB. If you already clipped at 0, peak normalization will do absolutely nothing for your recording. RMS normalization can help but i'd rather just put a soft limiter or compressor on instead of RMS normalization. To be honest I do that instead of normalization anyway if i need to.
does that make sense?
-
Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does. I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file. As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.
So what the hell is it?
Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe
I always thought of it as basically a gain or volume change, I always used a "peak normalize" which I thought meant take the loudest peak, and increase the volume of the overall passage so the peak then hits some certain value (for example I used to peak normalize to -0.02 dB in sound forge, just under 0dB).
Never thought there was compression associated with this process.
???
So why do they give you different options for volume and normalization on Sound Forge? That would imply that there has gotta be something different about it.
one thing that comes to mind is that using volume you can really brickwall your waveform if you crank it up. With peak normalization the most you can boost your max peak is up to 0dB.
I see peak normalization kind of as a "smart" volume adjustment since you can choose exactly where you want to peak out.
I could see how RMS normalization might have some compression involved in the normalization process due to the different nature of this type of normalizing (vs peak normalizing), But I never use RMS, I tried it once and it gave some funky strange sounding "pumping" of the sound in certain parts. Not natural sounding to my ears at all. I would also rather throw on a bit of soft limiting followed by peak normalization for music with low overall levels but some very sharp peaks.
BC
-
Thanks, I was tottally confused I guess. +T to both of ya(BC, STL-taper)
-
that "pumping" sound you hear is over-compression/limiting. a lower ratio and higher threshold will help avoid this.
sounds like you know what you are doing/ want to do. have fun making your recordings better! :)
backatcha Bdifr78 and + to you as well BC
-
Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does. I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file. As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.
So what the hell is it?
Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe
Isn't this just hard limiting? This is different than just raising the volume x amount as you are supposed to avoid clipping with this method. And the Waves L2 Ultramaximizer (is there an L3 now?) is supposed to be pretty good at it. I like using this to bring down the level of the audience (especially applause) relative to the music. Basically hard limit to the point that the music is peaking at or near 0 db so that no dynamic range in the music is lost, but the applause is not as prominent, and neither is it clipping or pumping if done well. The only compression is on the "excessive" audience noise. Maybe this is more useful in stealthing when one is in the midst of it . . .
-
If you are lucky enough that normalizing is accomplished by mulitplication by an integer power of 2, then you lose nothing in S/N ratio since there is never any rounding.
Do you mean it's better to rise the gain by 6 dB instead of normalization? If I have peaks lower than 6 dB then should I just multiply the signal by 2? That won't be normalization to 100%, but to a some percent close to that and leave the same s/n ratio?
I'm not sure I get your point. Lets say I have S/N ratio at 60 dB according to my recorder specs. I get some constant noise at that level. Now I record at low levels with peaks say at -12 dB. Now my signal to noise ratio is 12 to 60, which is less than when I record at high levels (like 0 to 60). Then I gain the signal, and I gain the noise too. Or am I completely wrong here?
In terms of S/N ratio, it's better to stick to integer powers of 2 for the increase in gain. That corresponds to shifting the binary representation left by an integer number of binary places. Each shift corresponds to an additional 6.02 dB of gain (approximately), but there is no loss of information in the lower order bits since they are all 0's. (This explanation probably is not the most lucid explanation I've ever attempted, but I hope you get what I'm saying.)
That said, I tend not to normalize unless I need more than about 3 dB of gain to hit the max. I know that I lose a small amount of S/N, but the resulting signal level is closer to that of commercially produced CDs when the recording has been normalized. Besides, I always keep the original recording in case I ever want to do some really critical listening and don't mind turning the volume up to do so. I'd rather just be able to throw a CD in the player an know that I won't have to adjust the volume knob to be able to hear it at the volume I expect. Purists will stick to 6.02 dB increments in gain so that they don't lose any S/N and just get as close to 0 dB as possible. I guess I'm not a purist, even though I know better...
-
Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does. I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file. As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.
So what the hell is it?
Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe
Isn't this just hard limiting? This is different than just raising the volume x amount as you are supposed to avoid clipping with this method. And the Waves L2 Ultramaximizer (is there an L3 now?) is supposed to be pretty good at it. I like using this to bring down the level of the audience (especially applause) relative to the music. Basically hard limit to the point that the music is peaking at or near 0 db so that no dynamic range in the music is lost, but the applause is not as prominent, and neither is it clipping or pumping if done well. The only compression is on the "excessive" audience noise. Maybe this is more useful in stealthing when one is in the midst of it . . .
I do this a lot for exactly this type of situation, run conservative for the master, then afterward hard/soft limit the applause so it peaks a few (typically 3-5) dB below where the music peaks, then finally use the waves L2 ultramaximizer to boost everything up. Did MMW acoustic 4-18-03 this way (http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=17742), turned out pretty good. I really like to squash the applause and crowd noise, so the guy clapping next to you does not blow out your ear when you have the recording cranked on your stereo or headphones. ;)
-
Ok, so obviously I had the wrong impression of what normalizing actually does. I thought that normalizing took the dynamic range and compressed it too raise the volume to a consistent specified level across the whole audio file. As to have less peaks and valleys in the db range, and make it louder across the board.
So what the hell is it?
Thanks for all the disscusion,
Joe
Isn't this just hard limiting? This is different than just raising the volume x amount as you are supposed to avoid clipping with this method. And the Waves L2 Ultramaximizer (is there an L3 now?) is supposed to be pretty good at it. I like using this to bring down the level of the audience (especially applause) relative to the music. Basically hard limit to the point that the music is peaking at or near 0 db so that no dynamic range in the music is lost, but the applause is not as prominent, and neither is it clipping or pumping if done well. The only compression is on the "excessive" audience noise. Maybe this is more useful in stealthing when one is in the midst of it . . .
I do this a lot for exactly this type of situation, run conservative for the master, then afterward hard/soft limit the applause so it peaks a few (typically 3-5) dB below where the music peaks, then finally use the waves L2 ultramaximizer to boost everything up. Did MMW acoustic 4-18-03 this way (http://db.etree.org/shninfo_detail.php?shnid=17742), turned out pretty good. I really like to squash the applause and crowd noise, so the guy clapping next to you does not blow out your ear when you have the recording cranked on your stereo or headphones. ;)
Good point. Sometimes you have to choose between preserving the S/N and dynamic range of the original recording and making the recording more listenable. Your compression limits the dynamic range, but oh well... If it makes the recording more listenable, isn't listening to our recordings the whole point of doing the recordings in the first place?
That said, I still think it's a good idea to archive the origninal, unmodified recording. I normally archive copies of the complete original, the complete normalized and the trimmed/tracked CD-ready files. Duplicate copies of the archived originals are also kept offsite in case the house gets hit by a tornado or fire or thief or whatever else might threaten my access to the originals.
-
Just to echo the sentiments of a few others, I try to run my levels as hot as possible during the initial recording. If by chance my levels aren't quite loud enough, I'll do a slight volume increase, maybe 1 - 2db, but that's it.
As a wiseman once said, if you're not getting the occasional red light, you're running your levels like a pussy...
;)
-
some rigs you have to be afraid of clipping....some you dont....my current one I have no concerns with clipping, run hot with no audible clipping...with those rigs there is no excuse to run conservatively...for rigs where it is audible...you still should push it....just not clip it....normalizing really is noticeable when it is any more a db or two...
-
Just to echo the sentiments of a few others, I try to run my levels as hot as possible during the initial recording. If by chance my levels aren't quite loud enough, I'll do a slight volume increase, maybe 1 - 2db, but that's it.
I agree here, for open taping at concerts with PA systems I can always get my levels to peak between -2 and 0 dB, so in general no need for normalizing/boosting here.
I run more conservatively for classical (which can have huge swings in dynamic range), jazz up close (same), and stealth (since I can't check my levels during the show and if I am running hot the whole time it is tough for me to get my mind off worrying about severe clipping, which makes me enjoy the show less. So I like to back off 5 dB or so and know that I am all good no matter how loud it gets. Plus stealthing I am usually taping classical or jazz also, so same concerns about dynamic range swings + with not being able to see my levels = more conservative on the V3 :P)
Plus I figure for these conservative situations, I am getting max 113 dB dynamic range on the V3 @ 24 bit, so even if I peak at -10 dB on the music (really low!) I am still pulling slightly better resolution than 16 bit with perfect levels. I think this extra dynamic range of the raw 24 bit master really helps the quality of the final normalized and dithered 16 bit CDR version. I don't think it would sound as good if I ran so conservatively with a 16 bit device and then did significant normalization. I had this old Reconstruction sbd DAT (3-8-79?) where the levels on the DAT were really low. I peak normalized the levels to just below 0 before burning it to CD. The normalized version sounds much more in-your-face which is nice, but still sounds kind of flat, like something is missing. I can't put my finger on exactly what, but I just feel like the music is not "all there", which I attribute to the low levels on the original DAT, so effectively the master was maybe a 14 or 15 bit recording. When boosting levels, the volume change helps but since the original master was lacking in ultimate resolution, the boosted version, while sounding louder, still shows the effect of the low original resolution, and maybe this effect is even more pronounced with the louder levels of the normalized version. Anyway, just thinking out loud...