normalizing

topic posted Mon, August 6, 2007 - 1:33 PM by  Je'si
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement

is it necessary to normalize audio tracks? i've read conflicting words on this topic. any important things to keep in mind here?

thanks.
: )
posted by:
Je'si
Vancouver
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: normalizing

    Mon, August 6, 2007 - 1:46 PM
    I don't find Normalizing very useful. If you're trying to make files generally louder, Normalizing can be helpful. But if you're trying to match levels of audio files, there is no good shortcut; use your ears.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: normalizing

    Mon, August 6, 2007 - 2:01 PM
    there no point to normalize. If you mix right you dont need to.. The point of normalizing is to get the loudest peak to the loudest point possible. That should be covered during the mixing/mastering process.Yyou should be decreasing gain for the most part during a mix, if you can normalize a track after you have mixed you did something wrong. Level adjustment should be set by your volume faders & Compressors.

    Normalizing is a tool to fix bad mixes or creating samples.
  • Re: normalizing

    Mon, August 6, 2007 - 2:46 PM

    Je'si ...

    If you set your levels correctly before you start recording (analog), you shouldn't have to normalize. That being said, things happen, and sometimes you need to. I wouldn't adopt an "always normalize" viewpoint as my own, any more than I would adopt a "never normalize" one. The good thing about it is that it can make a track louder (without the artifacts of compression), but the bad thing is that the _whole_ track is louder e.g. if your noise floor wasn't so great (not low enough), but you didn't hear it before, you might hear it now, and sometimes it can affect a mix in such a way as to make it hard to tell what the problem is -- all that you know is that it sounded better before. Also, like others have said, if you normalize all of your tracks, you lose any reference they had to other tracks from a volume perspective. Add to this that normalization is a destructive effect, while simple volume changes are not. If your audio app doesn't have a very good undo feature, normalization is often a one-way street.

    So, I would think of it as a tool that is good to have, but hopefully one that you won't use very often.

    Regards,

    John

    Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
    www.fallingyou.com
    • Re: normalizing

      Mon, August 6, 2007 - 2:56 PM

      thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. very helpful.

      i think i'm starting to get the picture (learning over here!) - basically, as far as mixing goes, the ideal is to get a balanced sound (levels/panning) with as little processing as possible. a 'kiss' of compression here or there (except for things like drums that need a heavier hand), and perhaps a bit of eq. the rest is left to mastering.

      am i thinking correctly here?
      • Re: normalizing

        Mon, August 6, 2007 - 3:17 PM
        yes. In the "old days" (ha!) of tape you had less headroom than you do these days on DAWs. The idea was to get your signal as loud as possible coming in to tape to increase the difference between your noise floor and your peaks (plus tape saturation sounded kind of cool). Now that the promised and glorious future is here, you have a huge amount of headroom, and barring some noise coming in on your signal chain, the noisefloor is not much of an issue. I generally track with peaks around -12 to -6 to minimize pulling down faders too much. The thinking there is, if you move your faders down too much you start losing bit depth (which is why it is unadvisable to pull your master fader down for monitoring and use an external volume control source instead).
        So, stop normalizing.

        of course this advice to you is useless if you are indeed using a tape machine... :)

        yeah right.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: normalizing

        Mon, August 6, 2007 - 3:20 PM
        Every mix & music style is different. Some require heavy processing & some very minimal. Your mix should sound 98% as you want it. Mastering sound be looked at as proper preparation for delivery formats. (Example Mastering for CD, DVD, cell phones, whatever). Dont think of mastering as a way to get a sound your looking for. Yes many good mastering enginees have to deal with 1/2ass mixes and make them sound better but I wouldn't mix with the idea of oh they will fix it in post in mind.. I say this as an Engineer in a Post mixing & Mastering studio.
        • Re: normalizing

          Tue, August 7, 2007 - 2:31 PM

          I'm working with some audio that was mistakenly recorded at quite a low volume. To increase the volume of the mix (keeping the master at 0dB) is it better to:

          A) normalize the files first, so I can keep their faders below 0dB
          or
          B) don't normalize - just raise the faders up to 6dB + ?

          To my ears, both techniques yield the same results but perhaps there is something 'in theory' that would help me hear for something in particular.

          The hidden question here is, is it a bad idea to raise faders over the 0dB level to get a mix to a decent volume?
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: normalizing

            Tue, August 7, 2007 - 3:03 PM
            I would raise the fader & processors. Almost every track i have will have at least an EQ, Compressor, plus a fader. All of those will have input & output gains. I have more potential gain then i would ever need. I have no need for normalization.

            As far as quality goes you wont lose anything moving vol up as long as you don't clip. But pulling faders down you technically start to lose data. So why normalize something just to bring the fader down later? ItÅ› counter productive. I can get into heavy Bit depth rambling if you would like but it always starts rants from the illinformed.
          • Re: normalizing

            Tue, August 7, 2007 - 3:20 PM
            You have another option:

            C) Gain change

            You can raise the level using a gain change, rather than a normalize. The difference is you're making a decision as to how much to raise the level, rather than telling the gain change to be based on the loudest sound.

            In practice, you could have, say, 20 recordings that were all at a lower level. If you performed a Normalize on then, they could all end up being different levels. But if you simply did a gain change on them all, they'd all go up or down by the amount you specified and would still relate to each other in the same manner, amplitude-wise.
            • Re: normalizing

              Tue, August 7, 2007 - 6:00 PM
              When I work on tracks and mixes I tend to watch the waveforms and use my ears rather than use normalize and compression. As Jory suggests... use gain change.
              display your waveform as large as you can and tune in on the waveform areas that look the loudest and gently turn these down with a volume curve to your ears satisfaction and to suit the nature of your audio material.
              Read the volume meters at these visibly loud points and after manually smoothing out the waveform, turn the whole track up so it is maximum loud.
              Don't forget that...
              Engin-ears have also got eyes!

Recent topics in "Audio Engineering"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Ex'pressions College- Any Opinions? Banzai! 15 December 20, 2009
Best head phones for the $ Dematerialize 13 December 20, 2009
Monitor question Oogie 6 November 16, 2009
Textbook for Audio Engineering or Electronic Music Andy 3 September 30, 2009