Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: aplying gain vs. normalizing  (Read 6813 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • I'm an idiot
aplying gain vs. normalizing
« on: June 09, 2006, 09:12:20 PM »
basicly what exactly is the difference?

i'm working on a show that is kind of quiet, expecialy in the low end. which is weird because it's usualy the other way around?? anyway, it sounds kinda distant, if that makes sence. thinking of boosting the gain around 1.5 db, but would i be better off using normlization? just looking for some opinions before i start playing around w/ it.

btw, i'm using wavelab5 and i could post a sample later when i get the time if that would help.

thanks,

 kirk
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2006, 10:31:35 PM »


with traditional normalization, audio progs scan a file for the loudest peak and amplifies so that the peak attains the loudest level.
 but if you do it while mastering, the songs will still vary in level because our ears respond to a songs "average" level. Metanormalize(wavelab tool) normalizes using RMS(average levels)
use the Meta Normalize tool for the best results(use instead of change gain)


WAVELAB:

drag all the files into the main window.
select batch process from the tools menu
click on the input tab, then add file button in the batch processing window, then select ADD ALL.
click on the edit batch plug ins button, when the processor list appears open the plug ins folder, and double click the Meta Normalizer plugin.

after clicking on the meta normalizing plugin, it appears in the left column in the processor list. double click to show the meta normalizer parameters , click on "equalize loudness"(RMS) "check global"(check maximize if possible if you want to use every bit of headroom)then check ok.

click on the processor list OK button
click on the batch process output tab. Click on the folder button to navigate to the desired folder, or create a new one. click on RUN and the files will be metanormalized and deposited where you want...

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2006, 10:43:57 PM »
Yep that about sums it up :)





with traditional normalization, audio progs scan a file for the loudest peak and amplifies so that the peak attains the loudest level.
 but if you do it while mastering, the songs will still vary in level because our ears respond to a songs "average" level. Metanormalize(wavelab tool) normalizes using RMS(average levels)
use the Meta Normalize tool for the best results(use instead of change gain)


WAVELAB:

drag all the files into the main window.
select batch process from the tools menu
click on the input tab, then add file button in the batch processing window, then select ADD ALL.
click on the edit batch plug ins button, when the processor list appears open the plug ins folder, and double click the Meta Normalizer plugin.

after clicking on the meta normalizing plugin, it appears in the left column in the processor list. double click to show the meta normalizer parameters , click on "equalize loudness"(RMS) "check global"(check maximize if possible if you want to use every bit of headroom)then check ok.

click on the processor list OK button
click on the batch process output tab. Click on the folder button to navigate to the desired folder, or create a new one. click on RUN and the files will be metanormalized and deposited where you want...
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2006, 11:23:23 PM »


with traditional normalization, audio progs scan a file for the loudest peak and amplifies so that the peak attains the loudest level.
 but if you do it while mastering, the songs will still vary in level because our ears respond to a songs "average" level. Metanormalize(wavelab tool) normalizes using RMS(average levels)
use the Meta Normalize tool for the best results(use instead of change gain)


WAVELAB:

drag all the files into the main window.
select batch process from the tools menu
click on the input tab, then add file button in the batch processing window, then select ADD ALL.
click on the edit batch plug ins button, when the processor list appears open the plug ins folder, and double click the Meta Normalizer plugin.

after clicking on the meta normalizing plugin, it appears in the left column in the processor list. double click to show the meta normalizer parameters , click on "equalize loudness"(RMS) "check global"(check maximize if possible if you want to use every bit of headroom)then check ok.

click on the processor list OK button
click on the batch process output tab. Click on the folder button to navigate to the desired folder, or create a new one. click on RUN and the files will be metanormalized and deposited where you want...

Dear Teddy,

Thanks for the info.

Hey, can you (or someone else) help me with Wavelab.  I noticed that it does not recognize my CDrom.  It is an external (USB) drive on a laptop.  I'm running Wavelab 4.0 on Windows XP.  I tried importing files, writing, or whatever.  It found my CD, but when I try to do anything, it doesn't work (just gives me a blank or greyed out dialog).   I couldn't find anything obvious in the Setup.  Maybe it just doesn't work.

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2006, 05:05:24 AM »
If a drive is not listed in the burning dialogue of Wavelab, run the latest recorder update.
Under that link you can find a downloadable list of the supported CD/DVD writers and the latest recorder update:
ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Hardware/CD_DVD_Recorder_Updates/Pc/

If the the burn process doesn't start, burning speeds are not displayed correctly or you can´t import a title from an Audio CD then try another ASPI driver:
1) Make a backup of your system
2) Get wnaspi32.dll from this place: ftp://ftp6.nero.com/wnaspi32.dll and copy it into the WaveLab folder.
3) Uninstall ASAPI (Control Panel / Remove programs). Then Reboot.

If a drive is not supported by the current CDR registry, please run [WaveLab]/Tools/cdr/drvreg.exe. Then right click on the desired drive and select "Assign driver". A dialog appears. Best is then to select the most similar drive from the same manufacturer.

If your CD-writer is supported official and you have despite the latest driverupdates still problems:

At first you should examine whether the DMA (Direct Memory Access) Mode is activated on your
CD-writer (and all the other drives). You can find it out with the hardware device manager
(Start -> Settings -> Systemcontrol -> System -> (-> Hardware (only Win 2000/XP)) -> hardware device manager. With Windows 95/98/ME you can find this setting directly at the properties of the drive, with Windows 2000 and XP you will find this settings under the primary und secundary IDE-Controller.

Newer versions of the Chipset (resp. the newest Chipsetdriver) have often no possibility, to activate the DMA Mode , because the IDE-channels already use the DMA Mode. Maybe you have to install or actualize the chipset resp. Busmaster driver, if there are problems with the DMA Mode and the usage of it. Some producers of CD-writers advice not to use the DMA Mode, but this is more likely the exception, because drives without DMA burden the CPU with datatransfer. If it is for some reason not possible to activate the DMA Mode or after a reboot it is again deactivated, you should try to solve that problem with the producer of the affected Hardware.

If your CD-writer isn´t recognized further on  look at the producers homepage of your drive, whether there is a new firmware available, and to update your drive if there is one.



CD Extra: Not all drives work correctly with WaveLab for CD Extra. Plextor drives are recommended.


After an update or an uninstallation of WaveLab on Windows 2000 or Windows XP, it is possible that your CD/DVD drives have dissapeared from your Windows “workstation” .
After an uninstallation the insertion in the registry will not be deleted sometimes. WaveLab needs a filter driver to work correctly on the operating system. If the driver is not availble on the harddisk, but if it is still listed in the registry, Windows will delete the drives from the “workstation”.

[start] -> [execute], type "regedit" and open the registry-editor: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E965-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}
Doubleclick on "Upperfilters"
A new Window will appear in which will be shown different values. If ASAPI is still installed, one of the values will show "ASAPI" .
If after an uninstallation ASAPI and the Upperfilter-value are still listed, please delete the Upperfilter-values manual.


with traditional normalization, audio progs scan a file for the loudest peak and amplifies so that the peak attains the loudest level.
 but if you do it while mastering, the songs will still vary in level because our ears respond to a songs "average" level. Metanormalize(wavelab tool) normalizes using RMS(average levels)
use the Meta Normalize tool for the best results(use instead of change gain)


WAVELAB:

drag all the files into the main window.
select batch process from the tools menu
click on the input tab, then add file button in the batch processing window, then select ADD ALL.
click on the edit batch plug ins button, when the processor list appears open the plug ins folder, and double click the Meta Normalizer plugin.

after clicking on the meta normalizing plugin, it appears in the left column in the processor list. double click to show the meta normalizer parameters , click on "equalize loudness"(RMS) "check global"(check maximize if possible if you want to use every bit of headroom)then check ok.

click on the processor list OK button
click on the batch process output tab. Click on the folder button to navigate to the desired folder, or create a new one. click on RUN and the files will be metanormalized and deposited where you want...

Dear Teddy,

Thanks for the info.

Hey, can you (or someone else) help me with Wavelab.  I noticed that it does not recognize my CDrom.  It is an external (USB) drive on a laptop.  I'm running Wavelab 4.0 on Windows XP.  I tried importing files, writing, or whatever.  It found my CD, but when I try to do anything, it doesn't work (just gives me a blank or greyed out dialog).   I couldn't find anything obvious in the Setup.  Maybe it just doesn't work.

  Richard


Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • I'm an idiot
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2006, 11:05:13 AM »
thanks bud. that answers part of my question anyway.  i think you assumed i had split tracks already? it's just one big file.  i still don't understand the difference between normlizing(either kind) and adding gain. maybe i'm just being thick headed?
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2006, 11:27:11 AM »
 normalization is an overall increase in the volume until the highest peak reaches "digital zero" (0 dbFS) or the highest volume you can possibly reach in a digital environment without distorting. adding gain, is well..adding gain, increasing the volume to a value that you determine...it doesnt work with averages , but rather on a set number. Adding gain is much better, IMHO. The dynamic levels are preserved, and it is really simple to do...with normalization, you can possibly screw up the dynamics.

.
thanks bud. that answers part of my question anyway.  i think you assumed i had split tracks already? it's just one big file.  i still don't understand the difference between normlizing(either kind) and adding gain. maybe i'm just being thick headed?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2006, 03:38:36 PM by Teddy »

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • I'm an idiot
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2006, 12:55:28 PM »
maybe it's the part about averages that has me confused?

if i run an anallisis and it shows my peak as being -1.972db and i aplyed say 1.9db of gain, wouldn't that be the same? also is it posible to do the rms in only one channel? (guess i had a couple too many pre show that night).
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8618
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2006, 01:52:14 PM »
 
The RMS normalization above is much better, IMHO. The dynamic levels are preserved, and it is really simple to do...with adding gain, you can possibly screw up the dynamics.

RMS normalization can screw up the dynamics.  adding gain(straight peak normalization) won't, since everything is raised by the same amount. but doesn't RMS normalization use limiting/compression?  that can screw up dynamic range

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2006, 02:08:15 PM »
If a drive is not listed in the burning dialogue of Wavelab, run the latest recorder update.

+T. Thanks for the detailed help!!!

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2006, 02:21:20 PM »
No, RMS normalization does not use compression or limiting. RMS normalization and compression are similar in that they both even out the overall volume, but compression is not used in the process of RMS normalization..

The RMS normalization above is much better, IMHO. The dynamic levels are preserved, and it is really simple to do...with adding gain, you can possibly screw up the dynamics.

RMS normalization can screw up the dynamics.  adding gain(straight peak normalization) won't, since everything is raised by the same amount. but doesn't RMS normalization use limiting/compression?  that can screw up dynamic range

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2006, 02:22:35 PM »
Been a while since ive used wavelab, but yes, you can use one channel.....simply select the one channel and analyze..I *think* that anything before 5.01b had an issue with processing only one channel..
maybe it's the part about averages that has me confused?

if i run an anallisis and it shows my peak as being -1.972db and i aplyed say 1.9db of gain, wouldn't that be the same? also is it posible to do the rms in only one channel? (guess i had a couple too many pre show that night).

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8618
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2006, 02:35:33 PM »
No, RMS normalization does not use compression or limiting. RMS normalization and compression are similar in that they both even out the overall volume, but compression is not used in the process of RMS normalization..

but RMS raises the levels based on the RMS level, so everything already above the RMS level is either clipped or compressed, depending on the approach the software doing the RMS normalization takes

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • I'm an idiot
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2006, 10:16:04 PM »
well thanks for ya'lls help, i think i might be even more comfused now  ???

i went the rms route and all seems fine. for what ever reason i couldn't change the rt channel independently, only the left. at least the peaks were w/ in 1db so i can live w/ it.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2006, 05:02:36 AM »
Yes, I think this is a bug with 5...you need 5.01b...
well thanks for ya'lls help, i think i might be even more comfused now  ???

i went the rms route and all seems fine. for what ever reason i couldn't change the rt channel independently, only the left. at least the peaks were w/ in 1db so i can live w/ it.

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 774
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2006, 01:55:42 PM »
Teddy, I think you've got it backwards.  Normalizing does not mess with the dynamic range at all.  As you said, It just amplifies everything by the same amount with the result that the largest sample goes to -0 dB.  There is still the same amount of difference (dB-wise) between the quiet sections and the loud sections.  When you use RMS normalization, you compress your original wide dynamic range so that the orignally quiet sections are closer in volume to the loud sections.  That is by definition a reduction in dynamic range.
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline greenone

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9281
  • Gender: Male
  • Russian mics... strong like bull...
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2006, 02:07:50 PM »
I've got a question I've never seen answered elsewhere...why do I see so many info files that say "normalized to 98%"? Why wouldn't you want to go to 100%? I mean, isn't 100% by definition not distorted?
Unofficial Blues Traveler archivist - glad to work on any BT or related recordings
archive.org admin - happy to upload tracked material to the LMA

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • I'm an idiot
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2006, 02:31:43 PM »
Teddy, I think you've got it backwards.  Normalizing does not mess with the dynamic range at all.  As you said, It just amplifies everything by the same amount with the result that the largest sample goes to -0 dB.  There is still the same amount of difference (dB-wise) between the quiet sections and the loud sections.  When you use RMS normalization, you compress your original wide dynamic range so that the orignally quiet sections are closer in volume to the loud sections.  That is by definition a reduction in dynamic range.

and now i'm even more confused.  i remember seeing a warning, in sf i think, about how normlizing w/ rms could introduce clipping. to me that sounds more like the way teddy said it. also might answer greenone's question?
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline Scooter

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1771
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2006, 03:18:07 PM »
Teddy, I think you've got it backwards.  Normalizing does not mess with the dynamic range at all.  As you said, It just amplifies everything by the same amount with the result that the largest sample goes to -0 dB.  There is still the same amount of difference (dB-wise) between the quiet sections and the loud sections.  When you use RMS normalization, you compress your original wide dynamic range so that the orignally quiet sections are closer in volume to the loud sections.  That is by definition a reduction in dynamic range.

QFT.  you nailed it.
MBHO 603a(ka200n/ka500hn) >
R-44, or H120

LMA Recordings

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2006, 03:37:31 PM »
yes, I had it backwards. My mistake. wisdom teeth extraction/vicodin and interweb dont mix.


Teddy, I think you've got it backwards.  Normalizing does not mess with the dynamic range at all.  As you said, It just amplifies everything by the same amount with the result that the largest sample goes to -0 dB.  There is still the same amount of difference (dB-wise) between the quiet sections and the loud sections.  When you use RMS normalization, you compress your original wide dynamic range so that the orignally quiet sections are closer in volume to the loud sections.  That is by definition a reduction in dynamic range.

QFT.  you nailed it.

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 774
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2006, 03:56:11 PM »

wisdom teeth extraction/vicodin and interweb dont mix.


Ouch.  Hopefully the extraction went well?  I've known people whose cheeks have swelled up like a chipmunk's from an extraction gone bad.
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline morningdew

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2006, 08:28:18 AM »
Ok, so this thread won't go down as a great for the archive. :o.

Here is what I've read so far:

Quote
Metanormalize(wavelab tool) normalizes using RMS(average levels)
use the Meta Normalize tool for the best results(use instead of change gain)

Quote
Adding gain is much better, IMHO. The dynamic levels are preserved, and it is really simple to do...with normalization, you can possibly screw up the dynamics.

Quote
RMS normalization can screw up the dynamics.  adding gain(straight peak normalization) won't,

So, have we come to conclusion or is the conclusion no one really knows?

Here is the scenario.  I make a recording.  My levels are low by let's say 5 dB.  I didn't touch or mess with the levels during my whole recording so I just want to highlight the whole file and raise the levels to 0 dB or -0.2 dB (I've read a lot that people do this, why I don't know and this was mentioned in a previous post, i.e. normalize to 98%).  In SoundForge I have 2 choices.

1. Normalize to my choice of dB.
2. RMS normalization.

Which is the best choice in this situation?

Offline Scooter

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1771
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2006, 09:13:15 AM »
MBHO 603a(ka200n/ka500hn) >
R-44, or H120

LMA Recordings

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 774
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2006, 09:16:15 AM »
I just want to highlight the whole file and raise the levels to 0 dB or -0.2 dB (I've read a lot that people do this, why I don't know and this was mentioned in a previous post, i.e. normalize to 98%).  In SoundForge I have 2 choices.

1. Normalize to my choice of dB.
2. RMS normalization.

Which is the best choice in this situation?


In my opinion, the best choice is to normalize to -0 dB.  By -0, I mean as close to 0.0 dB as possible without going over.  Dithering can cause you to go over, so some people don't like to normalize to absolute full scale.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that you'd notice if you clipped the dithering signal.  After all, it's supposedly inaudible noise.

If you use RMS normalization, you run the risk of actually clipping the audio signal itself.  I think some RMS routines employ soft clipping in order to keep the waveform between the rails instead of allowing them to hard clip, but I can't say that for certain.  I'm relying on inferences from things that other people have said in discussions similar to this one.  In particular, I don't know how SoundForge handles the clipping aspect of normalization.
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8618
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2006, 10:10:18 AM »
So, have we come to conclusion or is the conclusion no one really knows?

RMS raises the levels based on the RMS level.  Everything above the RMS level is either clipped or compressed, depending on how the software wants to do it (which is why i don't recommend RMS normalization)

Offline morningdew

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2006, 10:39:40 AM »
Ok, thanks guys.

I believe we have a good conclusion that in this case it is best to use "plain" normalization. Aviod using RMS normalization.

Thanks.

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • I'm an idiot
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2006, 10:45:43 AM »
Ok, thanks guys.

I believe we have a good conclusion that in this case it is best to use "plain" normalization. Aviod using RMS normalization.

Thanks.


that's what i got out of it.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2006, 01:24:51 AM »
Normalizing takes the average sound level and brings it up, it does this by looking at the peeks and looking at the valleys and using RMS root mean square or other algorithm, it comes up with a maximum level in can bring the recording up to before distortion. Gain is absolute, it is blind it will not ask you to scan a section for an RMS sample; it will simply apply gain to the whole section. It can bring up noise floor if used improperly; it can also bring up distortion levels too.

In order to use GAIN you must look at the loudest peek your self and decide how much gain can be added to it, before it distorts. The best way for a beginner to get more gain IMO is to normalize.

You must take songs and do them one at a time. I even go as far as to normalize quiet sections and loud sections separately, and then I normalize the whole song again just to smooth out the transition. I always keep a safety copy of the file as a back up.

 In the good old days of tape there was no such thing as a back up. Now you can play with EQ, Normalize, Expand and Compress till your hearts content.

 I know this will not help you much but the best advice is to take a really bad recording and see how much you can improve it. And one more tip try listening to this "improved" track with as many different speakers, Headphones as possible and try and get it so it sounds pretty good on everything and I bet you will have a nice recording when you’re done. Good luck

And remember there are no mistakes in audio just fun adventures :)



Chris Church

well thanks for ya'lls help, i think i might be even more comfused now  ???

i went the rms route and all seems fine. for what ever reason i couldn't change the rt channel independently, only the left. at least the peaks were w/ in 1db so i can live w/ it.
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2006, 01:31:38 AM »
Normalizing takes the average sound level and brings it up, it does this by looking at the peeks and looking at the valleys and using RMS root mean square or other algorithm, it comes up with a maximum level in can bring the recording up to before distortion. Gain is absolute, it is blind it will not ask you to scan a section for an RMS sample; it will simply apply gain to the whole section. It can bring up noise floor if used improperly; it can also bring up distortion levels too.

In order to use GAIN you must look at the loudest peek your self and decide how much gain can be added to it, before it distorts. The best way for a beginner to get more gain IMO is to normalize.

You must take songs and do them one at a time. I even go as far as to normalize quiet sections and loud sections separately, and then I normalize the whole song again just to smooth out the transition. I always keep a safety copy of the file as a back up.

 In the good old days of tape there was no such thing as a back up. Now you can play with EQ, Normalize, Expand and Compress till your hearts content.

 I know this will not help you much but the best advice is to take a really bad recording and see how much you can improve it. And one more tip try listening to this "improved" track with as many different speakers, Headphones as possible and try and get it so it sounds pretty good on everything and I bet you will have a nice recording when you’re done. Good luck

And remember there are no mistakes in audio just fun adventures :)



Chris Church

well thanks for ya'lls help, i think i might be even more comfused now  ???

i went the rms route and all seems fine. for what ever reason i couldn't change the rt channel independently, only the left. at least the peaks were w/ in 1db so i can live w/ it.

Hey Chris.

I'm still confused!  Does the RMS method apply a uniform gain over the whole sample or does it vary it over time?  OK, if it varies the gain, do you know what algorithm is used?

Thanks,
   Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline Scooter

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1771
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2006, 09:36:51 AM »
somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe RMS mode takes the root mean square of a selected portion of audio over time, and normalizes it using a compression so that it has an everage level that you select.  i don't know what the attack,release settings would be fot that though...
« Last Edit: June 14, 2006, 09:39:08 AM by Scooter »
MBHO 603a(ka200n/ka500hn) >
R-44, or H120

LMA Recordings

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8618
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2006, 09:53:07 AM »
Normalizing takes the average sound level and brings it up, it does this by looking at the peeks and looking at the valleys and using RMS root mean square or other algorithm, it comes up with a maximum level in can bring the recording up to before distortion.

He means RMS Normalizing.


Peak Normalizing just finds the loudest point (say it's -2) and brings everything up by 0 - that number (in this case 2db)

Offline greenone

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9281
  • Gender: Male
  • Russian mics... strong like bull...
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2006, 10:07:55 AM »
You must take songs and do them one at a time. I even go as far as to normalize quiet sections and loud sections separately, and then I normalize the whole song again just to smooth out the transition. I always keep a safety copy of the file as a back up.

I understand doing this for, say, compilations and whatnot, but wouldn't this create jarring changes between songs and completely ruin the dynamic range of a live concert? I've always been told to normalize the entire waveform for a given concert/set, THEN split it. Am I wrong?
Unofficial Blues Traveler archivist - glad to work on any BT or related recordings
archive.org admin - happy to upload tracked material to the LMA

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2006, 10:44:53 AM »
Sorry I missed one really importaint step :) hehehe Normalize the whole thing again once your done, It will not end up adding anything, but it will actually make the transition your talking about smoother :) opps :) I feel kind of dumb for not adding that step in my post. Thanks for pointing it out!

Chris Church


You must take songs and do them one at a time. I even go as far as to normalize quiet sections and loud sections separately, and then I normalize the whole song again just to smooth out the transition. I always keep a safety copy of the file as a back up.

I understand doing this for, say, compilations and whatnot, but wouldn't this create jarring changes between songs and completely ruin the dynamic range of a live concert? I've always been told to normalize the entire waveform for a given concert/set, THEN split it. Am I wrong?
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2006, 11:24:11 AM »


The best way I can explain what is going on is this.
Normalization takes the highest peek of audio and brings it up to about 1 db before absolute zero. So if we have an audio track and it is 10 db below zero the program will use rms to measure, the overall level changes and apply +9 db to the over all mix, to get it up to -1db. The rms part is only used to scan the audio track and determine max and min levels, so it knows 100% for sure how much gain it can add to the track before distortion.

The problem most people get into is when they try and get +30 db of gain out of a track via normalization. That is a job for gain, Gain can be added say +15 db depending on noise floor of the recording, and then normalizing can be done to the rest of the recording.

The only problem with normalizing is overuse, and no all programs do it the same way and with the same quality. I do not know what algorithm's are used per say, but I know there is a huge difference between say Nuendo and say early versions of Sound forge. The better the programs software the better the normalization is.

Real mastering studios do not use normalization very often on the tracks they work on, they use gain via a really nice recording consoles, and very good quality compression to pump things up. And we are not talking plugins here they also use EQ and play around with the Fletcher Munson curve until the audio screams. Well hopefully screams, Sometimes even mastering engineers go too far squashing the shit out of audio for the sake of a few more db and maybe be better noticed on the radio. I think a less is better approach is the best way to go.


 
Hey Chris.

I'm still confused!  Does the RMS method apply a uniform gain over the whole sample or does it vary it over time?  OK, if it varies the gain, do you know what algorithm is used?

Thanks,
   Richard

[/quote]
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2006, 11:51:11 AM »
Chris, to quote someone just type

(without the spaces)

[q u o t e author=Chris Church] I love digital audio![/quote] there is a space between quote and author..



The best way I can explain what is going on is this.
Normalization takes the highest peek of audio and brings it up to about 1 db before absolute zero. So if we have an audio track and it is 10 db below zero the program will use rms to measure, the overall level changes and apply +9 db to the over all mix, to get it up to -1db. The rms part is only used to scan the audio track and determine max and min levels, so it knows 100% for sure how much gain it can add to the track before distortion.

The problem most people get into is when they try and get +30 db of gain out of a track via normalization. That is a job for gain, Gain can be added say +15 db depending on noise floor of the recording, and then normalizing can be done to the rest of the recording.

The only problem with normalizing is overuse, and no all programs do it the same way and with the same quality. I do not know what algorithm's are used per say, but I know there is a huge difference between say Nuendo and say early versions of Sound forge. The better the programs software the better the normalization is.

Real mastering studios do not use normalization very often on the tracks they work on, they use gain via a really nice recording consoles, and very good quality compression to pump things up. And we are not talking plugins here they also use EQ and play around with the Fletcher Munson curve until the audio screams. Well hopefully screams, Sometimes even mastering engineers go too far squashing the shit out of audio for the sake of a few more db and maybe be better noticed on the radio. I think a less is better approach is the best way to go.


 
Hey Chris.

I'm still confused!  Does the RMS method apply a uniform gain over the whole sample or does it vary it over time?  OK, if it varies the gain, do you know what algorithm is used?

Thanks,
   Richard


Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2006, 11:58:34 AM »
Thanks


Chris, to quote someone just type

(without the spaces)

[q u o t e author=Chris Church] I love digital audio!
there is a space between quote and author..



The best way I can explain what is going on is this.
Normalization takes the highest peek of audio and brings it up to about 1 db before absolute zero. So if we have an audio track and it is 10 db below zero the program will use rms to measure, the overall level changes and apply +9 db to the over all mix, to get it up to -1db. The rms part is only used to scan the audio track and determine max and min levels, so it knows 100% for sure how much gain it can add to the track before distortion.

The problem most people get into is when they try and get +30 db of gain out of a track via normalization. That is a job for gain, Gain can be added say +15 db depending on noise floor of the recording, and then normalizing can be done to the rest of the recording.

The only problem with normalizing is overuse, and no all programs do it the same way and with the same quality. I do not know what algorithm's are used per say, but I know there is a huge difference between say Nuendo and say early versions of Sound forge. The better the programs software the better the normalization is.

Real mastering studios do not use normalization very often on the tracks they work on, they use gain via a really nice recording consoles, and very good quality compression to pump things up. And we are not talking plugins here they also use EQ and play around with the Fletcher Munson curve until the audio screams. Well hopefully screams, Sometimes even mastering engineers go too far squashing the shit out of audio for the sake of a few more db and maybe be better noticed on the radio. I think a less is better approach is the best way to go.


 
Hey Chris.

I'm still confused!  Does the RMS method apply a uniform gain over the whole sample or does it vary it over time?  OK, if it varies the gain, do you know what algorithm is used?

Thanks,
   Richard


[/quote]
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline greenone

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9281
  • Gender: Male
  • Russian mics... strong like bull...
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2006, 12:14:29 PM »
Sorry I missed one really importaint step :) hehehe Normalize the whole thing again once your done, It will not end up adding anything, but it will actually make the transition your talking about smoother :) opps :) I feel kind of dumb for not adding that step in my post. Thanks for pointing it out!

Chris Church


You must take songs and do them one at a time. I even go as far as to normalize quiet sections and loud sections separately, and then I normalize the whole song again just to smooth out the transition. I always keep a safety copy of the file as a back up.

I understand doing this for, say, compilations and whatnot, but wouldn't this create jarring changes between songs and completely ruin the dynamic range of a live concert? I've always been told to normalize the entire waveform for a given concert/set, THEN split it. Am I wrong?

This still doesn't make sense to me...let me see if I can illustrate it with numbers. Let's say unedited track "AB" contains two songs has an overall peak level of -2dB. You split AB into two tracks, track "A" and track "B". Track "A" is the louder track, with the -2dB peak. Track "B", however, is a quiet song that has a peak level of -10dB. You normalize track "A" and everything is raised by 2dB. You normalize track "B" and everything is raised by 10dB.

Then you're saying to normalize everything again once you're done...but how? You've already normalized to 0dB; where is the waveform going to go? And won't the crowd/background noise sound tremendously louder at the beginning of track B compared to the end of track A?
Unofficial Blues Traveler archivist - glad to work on any BT or related recordings
archive.org admin - happy to upload tracked material to the LMA

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2006, 01:47:13 PM »
The one thing you have to remember is there is no simple fix all approach. I do things this way and it works for me. You might try it and say I am nuts. Every case is different there is no fix all for tracks that are uneven. I would say if you have a 10 db difference between tracks in a stereo recording you have more problems then just getting things to work with normalization.

Chris Church


Sorry I missed one really importaint step :) hehehe Normalize the whole thing again once your done, It will not end up adding anything, but it will actually make the transition your talking about smoother :) opps :) I feel kind of dumb for not adding that step in my post. Thanks for pointing it out!

Chris Church


You must take songs and do them one at a time. I even go as far as to normalize quiet sections and loud sections separately, and then I normalize the whole song again just to smooth out the transition. I always keep a safety copy of the file as a back up.

I understand doing this for, say, compilations and whatnot, but wouldn't this create jarring changes between songs and completely ruin the dynamic range of a live concert? I've always been told to normalize the entire waveform for a given concert/set, THEN split it. Am I wrong?

This still doesn't make sense to me...let me see if I can illustrate it with numbers. Let's say unedited track "AB" contains two songs has an overall peak level of -2dB. You split AB into two tracks, track "A" and track "B". Track "A" is the louder track, with the -2dB peak. Track "B", however, is a quiet song that has a peak level of -10dB. You normalize track "A" and everything is raised by 2dB. You normalize track "B" and everything is raised by 10dB.

Then you're saying to normalize everything again once you're done...but how? You've already normalized to 0dB; where is the waveform going to go? And won't the crowd/background noise sound tremendously louder at the beginning of track B compared to the end of track A?
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18886
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2006, 01:54:14 PM »
The one thing you have to remember is there is no simple fix all approach. I do things this way and it works for me. You might try it and say I am nuts. Every case is different there is no fix all for tracks that are uneven. I would say if you have a 10 db difference between tracks in a stereo recording you have more problems then just getting things to work with normalization.

I think the 10 dB difference mentioned is a function of different dynamics from one track to the next.  Not sure how recording something with dynamic range > 10 dB is a problem.  ???

While there is no simple fix, there are certain actions that will change the dynamic range of the recording, or even change the dynamic range from track to track, something many of us do not like to do.  Normalizing each track independently -will- alter the original dynamic range of the recording.  Peak normalizing the entire recording as a single file will not.
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2006, 02:10:40 PM »
He was talking from left to right not a overall -10 level

The one thing you have to remember is there is no simple fix all approach. I do things this way and it works for me. You might try it and say I am nuts. Every case is different there is no fix all for tracks that are uneven. I would say if you have a 10 db difference between tracks in a stereo recording you have more problems then just getting things to work with normalization.

I think the 10 dB difference mentioned is a function of different dynamics from one track to the next.  Not sure how recording something with dynamic range > 10 dB is a problem.  ???

While there is no simple fix, there are certain actions that will change the dynamic range of the recording, or even change the dynamic range from track to track, something many of us do not like to do.  Normalizing each track independently -will- alter the original dynamic range of the recording.  Peak normalizing the entire recording as a single file will not.
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18886
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2006, 02:14:58 PM »
He was talking from left to right not a overall -10 level

Re-read the post.  I don't believe he's talking L/R.
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2006, 02:34:40 PM »
thanks I thought for some reason he was talking left right.


He was talking from left to right not a overall -10 level

Re-read the post.  I don't believe he's talking L/R.

for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2006, 02:44:26 PM »
OK let me say it like this if you take a group of songs and you normalize them one at a time it will get the most level out of each song. Then if you normalize them as a group it will then average the levels out, and give the tracks more continuity. Try it I use this trick in the studio all the time. On tracks and it always works. But not for everything :) Good luck have fun with this I don't go crazy with the normalizing thing but from time to time it comes in handy. The important thing to remember about normalizing is it takes the average mean level and boosts it up to 1- below zero now I if I take a song that has a few peeks at -2 the normalizing will not go to far to bring that level up. Now once I combine all the other tracks it will bring take a larger sample from all the tracks and average it out. This gives you the continuity and allows you to get the most volume from each track at the same time. Doing the whole group first, does not give you the loudest levels because it’s averaging out thru a whole series of songs. That is why you do all the tracks last. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Chris Church


Sorry I missed one really importaint step :) hehehe Normalize the whole thing again once your done, It will not end up adding anything, but it will actually make the transition your talking about smoother :) opps :) I feel kind of dumb for not adding that step in my post. Thanks for pointing it out!

Chris Church


You must take songs and do them one at a time. I even go as far as to normalize quiet sections and loud sections separately, and then I normalize the whole song again just to smooth out the transition. I always keep a safety copy of the file as a back up.

I understand doing this for, say, compilations and whatnot, but wouldn't this create jarring changes between songs and completely ruin the dynamic range of a live concert? I've always been told to normalize the entire waveform for a given concert/set, THEN split it. Am I wrong?

This still doesn't make sense to me...let me see if I can illustrate it with numbers. Let's say unedited track "AB" contains two songs has an overall peak level of -2dB. You split AB into two tracks, track "A" and track "B". Track "A" is the louder track, with the -2dB peak. Track "B", however, is a quiet song that has a peak level of -10dB. You normalize track "A" and everything is raised by 2dB. You normalize track "B" and everything is raised by 10dB.

Then you're saying to normalize everything again once you're done...but how? You've already normalized to 0dB; where is the waveform going to go? And won't the crowd/background noise sound tremendously louder at the beginning of track B compared to the end of track A?
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline greenone

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9281
  • Gender: Male
  • Russian mics... strong like bull...
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2006, 03:03:28 PM »
I think I understand where the communication gap is now...I'm talking about peak normalizing and you're talking about RMS normalizing. Sorry I wasn't specific; I think that's where we got confused.
Unofficial Blues Traveler archivist - glad to work on any BT or related recordings
archive.org admin - happy to upload tracked material to the LMA

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7573
  • Gender: Male
Re: aplying gain vs. normalizing
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2006, 03:04:58 PM »
Hehehe shit happens :)  8)

I think I understand where the communication gap is now...I'm talking about peak normalizing and you're talking about RMS normalizing. Sorry I wasn't specific; I think that's where we got confused.
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.4 seconds with 86 queries.
© 2002-2019 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF