[jtougas]

Hi folks -

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes
to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd
normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a
little quieter than the others.

He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man,
you should never normalize!"

I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for advice). But
I should have asked him why not.

So I'm asking y'all: why not?

Or should I take the middle road and apply sparingly?

I tend to record solo singer/songwriters with guitar, so there's not a
lot of background stuff going on with which I could hide problems.
--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings

[Paul Stamler]

"jtougas" wrote in message
...

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes
to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd
normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a
little quieter than the others.

He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man,
you should never normalize!"

I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for advice). But
I should have asked him why not.

So I'm asking y'all: why not?

Because it does nothing to improve the sound. All it does is make something
you haven't mixed down yet higher in level. So you'll set the fader lower
than you would if you hadn't normalized. So what?

The basic approach from the old days -- do as little as possible to your
signal -- still applies.

Peace,
Paul

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:51:02 -0500, jtougas
wrote:

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes
to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd
normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a
little quieter than the others.

He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man,
you should never normalize!"

I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for advice). But
I should have asked him why not.

So I'm asking y'all: why not?

Or should I take the middle road and apply sparingly?

I tend to record solo singer/songwriters with guitar, so there's not a
lot of background stuff going on with which I could hide problems.


Ideally, you'd have recorded at a level that didn't require
normalising.

But there's a lot of dynamic range in today's 24 bit audio files. You
could probably mix with most of the faders in the bottom inch of their
range with no perceptible quality loss. If it's more convenient to
boost one track (by normalising, or with a channel gain control) it's
not a disaster. What DOES it sound like? "A lot" of range isn't
infinite range, of course :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"jtougas" wrote in message

Hi folks -

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a
few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he
thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the
channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter
than the others.

He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said
"Oh, man, you should never normalize!"

I shrugged and said "Okay" (I was after, going to him for
advice). But I should have asked him why not.

So I'm asking y'all: why not?

The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical (not
even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about managing complex
relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic
characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only
iron rule for setting levels.

If the last thing you do to your music before distribution is to normalize
it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and
subjectivity.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:06:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical (not
even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about managing complex
relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic
characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only
iron rule for setting levels.

If the last thing you do to your music before distribution is to normalize
it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and
subjectivity.


What about setting channel and bus faders so as to give a healthy
output level? Do you retain "art and subjectivity", whatever that is,
by pushing the output fader but lose it by normalising to the
equivalent level?

Anyway, he was asking about normalising individual channels.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:06:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The problem with normalizing is that it is simplistic,
arithmetical (not even mathematical!) and arbitrary,
while music is about managing complex relationships in a
subjective way. Normalizing takes one simplistic
characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it as
the one and only iron rule for setting levels.

If the last thing you do to your music before
distribution is to normalize it, you've probably ruined
it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and
subjectivity.

What about setting channel and bus faders so as to give a
healthy output level?

I put that kind of level-setting in the same category as getting the paint
on the canvas, as opposed to the floor. Unless you are going to cut up the
floor and sell it as art, there's a lot to be said for getting the paint on
the canvas! ;-)

Do you retain "art and
subjectivity", whatever that is, by pushing the output
fader but lose it by normalising to the equivalent level?

I guess I did not convey my point well, which is that setting levels by ear
has a lot more potential to involve art than arbitrarily setting peak levels
to some predetermined fraction of some arbitrarily-chosen FS.

Anyway, he was asking about normalising individual channels.

The problem with slavish normalizaing is the arbitraryness and lack of
subjectivity.

BTW, this is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" situations. I ran afoul
of this in my first cut at a CD of our church's choir concert with orgqan,
brass and percussion. Because of the way the instruments were laid out, the
recording sounds best-balanced with the peaks in one channel about 3.6 dB
higher than the other. The first mixdown had peak levels that were forced to
be more-or-less balanced. It didn't sound right.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:4L2dndGw8YaChzvYnZ2dnUVZ_q-: The problem with
normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical
(not
: even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is
about managing complex
: relationships in a subjective way. Normalizing takes
one simplistic
: characteristic of music, its peak level, and uses it
as the one and only
: iron rule for setting levels.
:
: If the last thing you do to your music before
distribution is to normalize
: it, you've probably ruined it. You've certainly
removed a lot of art and
: subjectivity.



I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the
music before he normalized it since he had to normalize
it not because he normalized it.


peace
dawg.
:
:

[Arny Krueger]

"Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
wrote in message
nk.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:4L2dndGw8YaChzvYnZ2dnUVZ_q-: The problem with
normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical
(not
even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is about
managing complex relationships in a subjective way.
Normalizing takes one simplistic characteristic of
music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and only
iron rule for setting levels.

If the last thing you do to your music before
distribution is to normalize it, you've probably ruined
it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and
subjectivity.



I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the
music before he normalized it since he had to normalize
it not because he normalized it.

No. The point is that you never have to normalize music. And there are
times when leaving it as you mixed it is exactly the right thing to do.

You can ampilfy both channels to exploit the dynamic range of the
operational environment, which while netting out to being a similar process,
is conceptually and practically a different thing.

Or you can individually amplify or attenuate each file in a compendium, so
that the perceived loudness of the files in a compendium meet a practical or
an artistic need that relates to the whole compedium.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
: "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"

: wrote in message
:
nk.net
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news:4L2dndGw8YaChzvYnZ2dnUVZ_q-: The problem with
: normalizing is that it is simplistic, arithmetical
: (not
: even mathematical!) and arbitrary, while music is
about
: managing complex relationships in a subjective
way.
: Normalizing takes one simplistic characteristic of
: music, its peak level, and uses it as the one and
only
: iron rule for setting levels.
:
: If the last thing you do to your music before
: distribution is to normalize it, you've probably
ruined
: it. You've certainly removed a lot of art and
: subjectivity.
:
:
:
: I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the
: music before he normalized it since he had to
normalize
: it not because he normalized it.
:
: No. The point is that you never have to normalize
music. And there are
: times when leaving it as you mixed it is exactly the
right thing to do.
:
: You can ampilfy both channels to exploit the dynamic
range of the
: operational environment, which while netting out to
being a similar process,
: is conceptually and practically a different thing.
:
: Or you can individually amplify or attenuate each
file in a compendium, so
: that the perceived loudness of the files in a
compendium meet a practical or
: an artistic need that relates to the whole compedium.

Slippery slope equating perceived loudness to peak
voltage. They may be proportional sometimes but there
are other parameters that better indicate perception of
loudness than the max voltage hit over an arbitrary
length of time.

peace
dawg
:
:

[Paul Stamler]

Guys, go back and read the OP. He's recording multitrack and asking whether
he should normalize a couple of the tracks which weren't recorded at a high
enough level. At least, that's how I read it.

Peace,
Paul

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:20:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I interpret what you said as he probably ruined the
music before he normalized it since he had to normalize
it not because he normalized it.

No. The point is that you never have to normalize music. And there are
times when leaving it as you mixed it is exactly the right thing to do.

You can ampilfy both channels to exploit the dynamic range of the
operational environment, which while netting out to being a similar process,
is conceptually and practically a different thing.

Or you can individually amplify or attenuate each file in a compendium, so
that the perceived loudness of the files in a compendium meet a practical or
an artistic need that relates to the whole compedium.

I didn't know you were a Jesuit :-)

[Mike Rivers]

jtougas wrote:
In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes
to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd
normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a
little quieter than the others.

He looked at me with a fairly shocked expression and said "Oh, man,
you should never normalize!"

So I'm asking y'all: why not?

What normalizing does is locates the loudest point in the file (or
segment or track, however you do it) and, if it's not already at the
peak digital level (or whatever point you set if your program gives you
that option), it calculates how far away from maximum level it is, and
just adds that much gain to the whole file. In essence, it's the
equivalent of turning up the playback volume without the listener having
to touch a control on his player.

Normalizing is often frowned upon by pseudo (and some real)
"professionals," not because it does any damage, but because it
shouldn't be necessary because you should have set the record level so
that it reaches the desired playback level. The damage, if any, has
already been done in the recording process, and you're not making
anything any better by normalizing . . . except for one thing - the
listener is insulated from your "mistake" and doesn't have to turn up
the volume to hear it at at the same level as the last thing he listened
to.

There is, however, some validity to not normalizing to full scale (0
dBFS) on general principles. It has to do with the characteristics of
the player. Many (in fact most) D/A converters increase their distortion
in the last 1 dB or so before full scale. However, this is still a
pretty small amount of distortion. If you're inexperienced enough so
that you feel that it's necessary to normalize to get the playback level
up to the point where it won't make the listener want to turn it up,
there are probably worse problems with your recordings.

So, in summary, it's better to do it right so that you aren't tempted to
normalize, but if you missed the mark, most listeners would rather have
a little more noise in the playback than get off the couch and adjust
the volume control. It's kind of the poor-and-sloppy man's mastering.
How effective normalizing is toward making a recording subjectively
louder is a function of the difference between the peak level and the
average level. If there's one drum hit that's just 1 dB below peak
level, but everything else is 15 dB lower, you won't hear a significant
volume change when you normalize, because all that will happen is that
the overall level will ony be boosted by 1 dB. There are less simplistic
ways of making a recording sound louder, by actually increasing the
density, rather than just the peak level, of the recording. That's most
often part of what's called "mastering" today.

[Anders Svinndal]

"Mike Rivers" skrev i melding
news:QJpph.4218$Ul4.2483@trnddc05...
jtougas wrote:

There is, however, some validity to not normalizing to full scale (0 dBFS)
on general principles. It has to do with the characteristics of the
player. Many (in fact most) D/A converters increase their distortion in
the last 1 dB or so before full scale. However, this is still a pretty
small amount of distortion. If you're inexperienced enough so that you
feel that it's necessary to normalize to get the playback level up to the
point where it won't make the listener want to turn it up, there are
probably worse problems with your recordings.


As others have mentioned I can't see any reason to normalize individual
tracks in a multi-track project. However; if the final mix has a peak-level
some dB below 0 dBFS I can't see any reason not to normalize it. Most of us
will record and mix in 24 bit which have more headroom then the final 16 bit
CD, so normalizing the mix before dithering to 16 bit will make better use
of the dynamic range on the final CD.

Most people will normalize to 0 dBFS, but as Mike says there might be a good
idea to stop at -1 dBFS (or maybe even -3) as normalizing to 0 might give a
small amount of distortion in the CD-players DA-converter. For those
interrested, you can read more about this in this paper:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/ni...0_0dbfs_le.pdf

[hank alrich]

Anders Svinndal wrote:

As others have mentioned I can't see any reason to normalize individual
tracks in a multi-track project. However; if the final mix has a peak-level
some dB below 0 dBFS I can't see any reason not to normalize it. Most of us
will record and mix in 24 bit which have more headroom then the final 16 bit
CD, so normalizing the mix before dithering to 16 bit will make better use
of the dynamic range on the final CD.

I would leave level maximizing to the mastering engineer. I would not
put him/her in the position of having to reduce the level of my tracks
to get them all to match nicely. I'd leave him headroom to work with.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Anders Svinndal]

"hank alrich" skrev i melding
...
Anders Svinndal wrote:

As others have mentioned I can't see any reason to normalize individual
tracks in a multi-track project. However; if the final mix has a
peak-level
some dB below 0 dBFS I can't see any reason not to normalize it. Most of
us
will record and mix in 24 bit which have more headroom then the final 16
bit
CD, so normalizing the mix before dithering to 16 bit will make better
use
of the dynamic range on the final CD.

I would leave level maximizing to the mastering engineer. I would not
put him/her in the position of having to reduce the level of my tracks
to get them all to match nicely. I'd leave him headroom to work with.

I totally agree on that! You should send the mixes to the mastering studio
in 24 bit format. (Yes, I do recommend using a professional mastering
studio.) All processing (eq, compressing, limiting, normalizing) should be
done in this format. Than, as a last thing, they should dither to 16 bit.

[jtougas]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:05:04 GMT, Mike Rivers
trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write:

There is, however, some validity to not normalizing to full scale (0
dBFS) on general principles. It has to do with the characteristics of
the player. Many (in fact most) D/A converters increase their distortion
in the last 1 dB or so before full scale.

Before I posted, I read everything I've got saved on my laptop from
this ng. After I posted, I went to Google and read the best responses
from an older post, specifically Scott Dorsey's response.

I feel better knowing the tracks I normalized I *didn't* normalize to
0db, but to -6db.

But I still wish I'd gotten the levels right in the first place,
dammit.

--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings

[Bob Olhsson]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Normalizing is often frowned upon by pseudo (and some real)
"professionals," not because it does any damage, but because it
shouldn't be necessary because you should have set the record level so
that it reaches the desired playback level. The damage, if any, has
already been done in the recording process, and you're not making
anything any better by normalizing . . .


The additional quantization caused by the gain change DOES damage the
audio quality!

The only time "normalization" can possibly buy you anything is in the
final D to A conversion. Otherwise it only adds noise or distortion if
you fail dither your gain change.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Mike Rivers]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

The additional quantization caused by the gain change DOES damage the
audio quality!

EVERYTHING changes the audio quality. If a gain change is necessary
for aesthetic reasons (or perceived reasons) it does no more harm to
make that change using the Normalize function than to do it by manual
means, at least by the means that might be available to the casual
user.

The only time "normalization" can possibly buy you anything is in the
final D to A conversion. Otherwise it only adds noise or distortion if
you fail dither your gain change.

It's possible that dithering is automatic when normalizing with some
software. Generally when one finds the need to normalize, noise and
distortion aren't of as great concern as perceived volume, or more
likely, perceived meter readings or waveform graphic size.

Hey, I don't condone liberal use of the Normalize button, but if
you're going to make it loud and do it quickly, it gets the job done.
There are better ways to gain in the loudness war but they're often
out of reach, both technically and financially, from casual users.

It's always best to do it right when recording so there's no need for
normalizing. But we've come to encourage people to leave plenty of
headroom when recording, so some people are making recordings that
don't peak higher than -10 dBFS or so, and that's probably a good
thing in the overall scheme of things. Working at 24 bit resolution
(with the assumtion that proper dithering will be applied when they
burn the CD that they pass around to their friends or send in for
produdtion) there really isn't going to be a lot of harm done by
adding 6 dB of gain, and they'll feel better about it.

[Bob Olhsson]

Mike Rivers wrote:
EVERYTHING changes the audio quality. If a gain change is necessary
for aesthetic reasons (or perceived reasons) it does no more harm to
make that change using the Normalize function than to do it by manual
means, at least by the means that might be available to the casual
user.

The key word here is "necessary." If you're just going to be changing
the volume again in the final mix, normalizing only adds noise and/or
distortion.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Mike Rivers]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

The key word here is "necessary." If you're just going to be changing
the volume again in the final mix, normalizing only adds noise and/or
distortion.

To most people who have a desire to normalize, they're talking about
the final mix. At least until they change something else. g

[Carey Carlan]

Bob Olhsson wrote in news:GPHwh.15011$fC2.6662
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

The only time "normalization" can possibly buy you anything is in the
final D to A conversion. Otherwise it only adds noise or distortion if
you fail dither your gain change.

Yes, you must dither after the amplification, but normalizing in 24 bits
before resampling to 16 bits with dither is harmless.

I normalize every recording I make. As the last step while still in 24
bits, I amplify such that the loudest sample is -1 dBFS. I then resample
to 16 bits and dither, then go to CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message

Bob Olhsson wrote in
news:GPHwh.15011$fC2.6662 @bignews4.bellsouth.net:

The only time "normalization" can possibly buy you
anything is in the final D to A conversion. Otherwise it
only adds noise or distortion if you fail dither your
gain change.

Yes, you must dither after the amplification, but
normalizing in 24 bits before resampling to 16 bits with
dither is harmless.

I normalize every recording I make. As the last step
while still in 24 bits, I amplify such that the loudest
sample is -1 dBFS. I then resample to 16 bits and
dither, then go to CD.

That's only common sense. While *any* change hurts the measured dynamic
range of a file, It makes sense to quantify the size of the effect on sound
quality. If you are working with 24 bit files or better yet 32 bit point
floating files, it takes an immense number of changes to audibly affect the
dynamic range of the recording.

If you're working with 16 bits, any step that attenuates the file will cause
a perfect file to lose some dynamic range. For example, attenuating a
perfect file by 6 dB will cost about 6 dB of dynamic range. However, real
world audio files are far from perfect. Attenuating a q6 bit file with 75
dB dynamic range will have negligable effects on the dynamic range of the
file until the file's peak levels are no higher than about -20 dB FS. Then,
further attenuation will reduce the dynamic range by roughly the amount of
the attenuation.

Amplifiying a 16 bit file has negligable effects on the dynamic range of a
file as long as clipping is avoided.

These are situations that can be tested with DAW software pretty readily,
using RMA55 freeware as your analytical software.

[ernest]

Normalizing is often frowned upon by pseudo (and some real)
"professionals," not because it does any damage, but because it
shouldn't be necessary because you should have set the record level so
that it reaches the desired playback level. The damage, if any, has
already been done in the recording process, and you're not making
anything any better by normalizing . . . except for one thing - the
listener is insulated from your "mistake" and doesn't have to turn up
the volume to hear it at at the same level as the last thing he listened
to.

Please help me out here Mike. It sounds as if you're saying
during tracking time, one should record at the desired
playback level. On the preamp, I always do it peak 0dBVu.
But on DAW, I kept hearing other say I should hit it between
-15 to -18 dBFS and that's sufficient. But when you say
'desired playback level' it almost mean to hit it much
higher in terms of dBFS. Or you are implying people don't
wanna turn up their volume these days, and/or people are
recording/mixing way too loud? Or whoever said -15 to -18
dBFS is sufficient is simply wrong?

[Laurence Payne]

On 2 Feb 2007 14:37:56 -0800, "ernest" wrote:

Please help me out here Mike. It sounds as if you're saying
during tracking time, one should record at the desired
playback level. On the preamp, I always do it peak 0dBVu.
But on DAW, I kept hearing other say I should hit it between
-15 to -18 dBFS and that's sufficient. But when you say
'desired playback level' it almost mean to hit it much
higher in terms of dBFS. Or you are implying people don't
wanna turn up their volume these days, and/or people are
recording/mixing way too loud? Or whoever said -15 to -18
dBFS is sufficient is simply wrong?

We seem to be jumping between the issues of normalising tracks in a
mixing environment an of normalising a finished mix.

In the day, we recorded analogue tracks hot in order to get good s/n,
and maybe to achieve the particular distortion peculiar to slightly
overloaded tape. Now we place the record level conservatively within
our 24 available bits, and the only sin is overload. Noise floors
are low, so if we find it convenient to trim a channel up (or down),
it's a perfectly acceptable technique.

A completed mix may be nudging full-scale, may be several dB down. The
music will have a finite dynamic range, but we've got a lot of bits in
which to position that range. If it's convenient to position it
higher (or lower) at this stage, so what?

We haven't got an in finite dynamic window, or an infinitely low noise
floor. We can still store up trouble by using too sloppy a gain
structure. But we have much more usable headroom than in the analogue
days. (Rather more useful to look at it as "bottom-room" though.)

[Mike Rivers]

ernest wrote:

Please help me out here Mike. It sounds as if you're saying
during tracking time, one should record at the desired
playback level. On the preamp, I always do it peak 0dBVu.
But on DAW, I kept hearing other say I should hit it between
-15 to -18 dBFS and that's sufficient.

Generally they should occur at about the same point. When your preamp
or mixer's meter is showing around 0 VU (assuming you have 20 dB or so
of headroom above that) then your A/D converter sensitivity should be
such that your're getting a digital level of around -15 to -20 dBFS.
That way, both the mic preamp and the A/D converter reach their
maximum level at about the same point.

But when you say
'desired playback level' it almost mean to hit it much
higher in terms of dBFS.

No, not really. If you're mixing a bunch of tracks that run in the -15
dBFS range, unless you're just compressing the life out of them before
you record, they'll have peaks that get pretty close to full scale.
And when you add them together, they'll be plenty loud. You can always
make the mix louder once it's established if that's what you want to
do, but if all your tracks are running pretty hot and then you mix
them, you'll have to pull the levels down to prevent the sum from
"overloading." And raising the level with normalization and then
cutting it back with the mix faders is counterproductive.

Or you are implying people don't
wanna turn up their volume these days, and/or people are
recording/mixing way too loud? Or whoever said -15 to -18
dBFS is sufficient is simply wrong?

-15 to -18 dBFS nominal level is good. It leaves 15 to 18 dB of
headroom for peaks that naturally occur in music.

It's true that people don't want to turn their volume control up. And
with their engineer hat on, they feel that if they have to turn up the
listening volume, it will be too low to compete with commercial
recordings. And they'd be right. But the place to make that adjustment
is after the mix is completed, not by rasiing the level of every track.

[ernest]

And raising the level with normalization and then
cutting it back with the mix faders is counterproductive.

I just did a mix and it sounds ok mixed, but the overall levels are
just too low. If I mixed down stereo, I cannot get too much by
putting on comp/limit and pushing it up - coz it'll sound crushed.
I've found 'a way' - but you guys probably kick me for this: I mixed
down each sub mix (guitar,vocal,drums...), and then re-import them
into the sequencer, and then there I normalize all of them and the
push it back to get the balance mix back. I know it's bad/wrong/evil,
but what is the alternative? I'm not sure what is 'post-gain' in
cubase term is.

I have a bunch of related questions. What is 'applying gain', or 'post
gain' in Cubase term? I'm always confused with 2 things in Cubase:

1. The channel fader - it has markings from -inf to +6. What does it
do when I push it above the fader 0? Is that the 'post gain'?
2. Each saved .wav segment has a 3 blue color points, front/back and
middle. The front/back is for fading and the middle one, I can drag it
up or down - for -inf to +6 again, while the waveform changes. Is that
another 'post gain'?

- what are the difference between the two in terms of the gain it
created?
- given digital nature of the signal, why can't one push it much
higher than +6 based on user request?
- what are other ways of applying user specified 'post gain' in the
signal chain? Set the comp to 1:1 and push the makeup???

Thanks...


Or you are implying people don't
wanna turn up their volume these days, and/or people are
recording/mixing way too loud? Or whoever said -15 to -18
dBFS is sufficient is simply wrong?

-15 to -18 dBFS nominal level is good. It leaves 15 to 18 dB of
headroom for peaks that naturally occur in music.

It's true that people don't want to turn their volume control up. And
with their engineer hat on, they feel that if they have to turn up the
listening volume, it will be too low to compete with commercial
recordings. And they'd be right. But the place to make that adjustment
is after the mix is completed, not by rasiing the level of every track.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

Bad




--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[hank alrich]

David Morgan wrote:

Bad

To the bone!

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Albert]

On Jan 10, 8:51 pm, jtougas wrote:
Hi folks -

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes
to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd
normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a
little quieter than the others.

If I feel the need to do that I usually increase the gain by 6 dB or a
multiple thereof. Say if the highest peak in the file is - 17dB, I
change gain by +12dB. The thought there is that a 6 dB change is a
simple doubling, whereas any other amount (like an amount that might
be applied by normalising) is more complex, giving a bigger chance of
unwanted artifacts.

Albert

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Albert" wrote in message oups.com...
On Jan 10, 8:51 pm, jtougas wrote:
Hi folks -

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes
to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd
normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a
little quieter than the others.

If I feel the need to do that I usually increase the gain by 6 dB or a
multiple thereof.

You've lost me... what do sixes, twelves, eighteens and twenty-fours have to
do with anything?

Are you saying that increasing volume by 200%, 398.11% or 794.33% (etc.) is
somehow beneficial to a basic normalisation?

Say if the highest peak in the file is - 17dB, I change gain by +12dB.

# 1.... why don't you just use a fader at mixtime?

# 2.... why didn't you just normalize to -5 dbfs

# 3.... what's the mathematical difference between # 2 and your gain change?

More later... ;-)



DM

[Albert]

On Feb 2, 10:58 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"Albert" wrote in messagenews: If I feel the need to do that I usually increase the gain by 6 dB or a
multiple thereof.

You've lost me... what do sixes, twelves, eighteens and twenty-fours have to
do with anything?

Are you saying that increasing volume by 200%, 398.11% or 794.33% (etc.) is
somehow beneficial to a basic normalisation?

Say if the highest peak in the file is - 17dB, I change gain by +12dB.

# 1.... why don't you just use a fader at mixtime?

# 2.... why didn't you just normalize to -5 dbfs

# 3.... what's the mathematical difference between # 2 and your gain change?

More later... ;-)

DM

OK... I actually picked up this tidbit on this group. Here's the
quote, from Scott Dorsey.

"Yes. And for a 6 dB increase all you need to do is a right shift, so
there
is no loss of precision.
But for any other level changes that are NOT powers of two, there will
be
some rounding error introduced with the multiplication, and that is
what folks
are trying to avoid. "
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

As to your point #1 - one reason might be to have a waveform to look
at where you can see what's happening. Not a big deal, granted, but
sometimes handy for editing. Also, It's something like setting the
faders to unity on a mixer and setting gains to achieve a good basic
mix. It just feels odd to me to have some faders cranked all the way
up and others down at -30.

Albert

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Albert" wrote in message ups.com...
On Feb 2, 10:58 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"Albert" wrote in messagenews: If I feel the need to do that I usually increase the gain by 6 dB or a
multiple thereof.

You've lost me... what do sixes, twelves, eighteens and twenty-fours have to
do with anything?

Are you saying that increasing volume by 200%, 398.11% or 794.33% (etc.) is
somehow beneficial to a basic normalisation?

Say if the highest peak in the file is - 17dB, I change gain by +12dB.

# 1.... why don't you just use a fader at mixtime?

# 2.... why didn't you just normalize to -5 dbfs

# 3.... what's the mathematical difference between # 2 and your gain change?

More later... ;-)

DM

OK... I actually picked up this tidbit on this group. Here's the
quote, from Scott Dorsey.

"Yes. And for a 6 dB increase all you need to do is a right shift, so
there
is no loss of precision.
But for any other level changes that are NOT powers of two, there will
be
some rounding error introduced with the multiplication, and that is
what folks
are trying to avoid. "
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

As to your point #1 - one reason might be to have a waveform to look
at where you can see what's happening. Not a big deal, granted, but
sometimes handy for editing. Also, It's something like setting the
faders to unity on a mixer and setting gains to achieve a good basic
mix. It just feels odd to me to have some faders cranked all the way
up and others down at -30.

Albert


Comments Scott? I'm always in learning mode...


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[Meindert Sprang]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in message
news:fGCxh.1961$5U4.753@trnddc07...

"Albert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 2, 10:58 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
"Yes. And for a 6 dB increase all you need to do is a right shift, so
there
is no loss of precision.
But for any other level changes that are NOT powers of two, there will
be
some rounding error introduced with the multiplication, and that is
what folks
are trying to avoid. "
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

As to your point #1 - one reason might be to have a waveform to look
at where you can see what's happening. Not a big deal, granted, but
sometimes handy for editing. Also, It's something like setting the
faders to unity on a mixer and setting gains to achieve a good basic
mix. It just feels odd to me to have some faders cranked all the way
up and others down at -30.

Albert


Comments Scott? I'm always in learning mode...

Scott is right and wrong (:^). Increasing by 6 dB doubles the signal, which
is the same as shifting each sample one bit to the left, which can be
considered as a clean operation. However, shifting one bit left is not
exactly 6 dB, it is 6.02059...... dB. Your DAW software does not even allow
you to set exactly this value. So when you set the gain to 6 dB, the
software has to use an ordinary multiplication anyway, so the gain increase
could be set to any value with the same effect. Further: most if not all
software uses at least 32 bits of even floating point to perform the
calculations and any rounding error in that process is so insignificant
compared to the 24 bit output from your DAW software.

So as long as the software does not offer an exact "sample shift function",
this whole issue is a moot point.

Meindert

[Scott Dorsey]

David Morgan \(MAMS\) /Odm wrote:
As to your point #1 - one reason might be to have a waveform to look
at where you can see what's happening. Not a big deal, granted, but
sometimes handy for editing. Also, It's something like setting the
faders to unity on a mixer and setting gains to achieve a good basic
mix. It just feels odd to me to have some faders cranked all the way
up and others down at -30.

Comments Scott? I'm always in learning mode...

My comments:

1. A lot of software doesn't do straight left and right shift, even
when it could. So in that case, it doesn't matter.

2. My philosophy is that in general, gain changes are probably a bad idea
if you can avoid them, so make as few as possible. Plan things out,
then do it once.

3. Most workstations now use internal floating point representations anyway,
so your data is already being converted to float and back. Once you are
in the floating point representation, you can do plenty of gain changes
without worry.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau]

Comments Scott? I'm always in learning mode...

You'll never hear the difference anyway, so who cares?

[Don Pearce]

On 2 Feb 2007 23:42:12 -0800, "Albert" wrote:

On Jan 10, 8:51 pm, jtougas wrote:
Hi folks -

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a few of my mixes
to a friend of mine, to see what he thinks, and I mentioned I'd
normalized one or two of the channels in the tracks since they were a
little quieter than the others.

If I feel the need to do that I usually increase the gain by 6 dB or a
multiple thereof. Say if the highest peak in the file is - 17dB, I
change gain by +12dB. The thought there is that a 6 dB change is a
simple doubling, whereas any other amount (like an amount that might
be applied by normalising) is more complex, giving a bigger chance of
unwanted artifacts.

Albert

6dB is not doubling - it i just a little less than doubling, so there
is no reason why it should give rise to fewer artifacts than any other
ratio.

If you want to double, it is 6.02059991dB

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Albert" wrote in message
oups.com
On Jan 10, 8:51 pm, jtougas
wrote:
Hi folks -

In my pursuit of improving my recordings, I've taken a
few of my mixes to a friend of mine, to see what he
thinks, and I mentioned I'd normalized one or two of the
channels in the tracks since they were a little quieter
than the others.

If I feel the need to do that I usually increase the gain
by 6 dB or a multiple thereof. Say if the highest peak in
the file is - 17dB, I change gain by +12dB. The thought
there is that a 6 dB change is a simple doubling, whereas
any other amount (like an amount that might be applied by
normalising) is more complex, giving a bigger chance of
unwanted artifacts.

No doubt based on the mistaken idea that 6 dB represents doubling or
halving, and that this will somehow net out to arithmetic that does not
generate new fractional parts. There's at least one fly in that ointment -
doubling or halving corresponds to an uneven number of dB, namely 6.02 dB.