normalize, or not to normalize

jmorris

jmorris

New member
Someone explain please why we do not normalize an entire mix. As I understand it ,it is set aside for say a track that has"issues",not an entire mix. Yet, my Masterlink has normalize as part of its DSP for the enitre stereo mix. I know a guy that does a lot of 'puter mixing and he always normalizes. . :confused:
 
The general consensus is that normalizing is pretty useless...mainly because it just works on peaks...for instance, if you set it to 100%, then it will take the highest peak and raise it as high as it can go without clipping...of course, the dynamic range of the selection remains the same, you are essentially just increasing the volume...of course, you don't have any control over HOW MUCH you are increasing the volume, because it depends on where the peaks lie.

If you want to change the dynamic range, then you are better off using a complessor/limiter...if you just want to turn it up, do just that!

Sorry I can't explain it better...take a look at this thread:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=98734&highlight=normalize
 
jmorris - what issues do you hear after you normalize a full mix?

...or is this a moral issue :D

Normalize a mix to a certain dB automatically by button...

Normalize a mix to a certain dB manually by hand...

Normalize a collection of mixes to sound consistent in terms of volume, eq, dynamics...

Lots of fun threads to search thru and experiments to try!

I've seen Cool Edit Pro rms normalize work and not work. I used Magix normalize last month once and it was ok. Trying to auto-normalize a dynamically different collection of mixes is usually tricky and needs to be re-adjusted by hand anyway.

Probably the better the listening environment and equipment the easier it is to manually make a collection consistent.

Didn't someone like Joe Meek say - 'If it sounds consistent, it is consistent'. However you get there !

kylen (garage engineering society)
 
I think Trogdor made it clear.

I have also heard Normalizing can degrade sound quality unless you are in the 32 bit floating point realm. Somewhere I have a 2 page explanation.

I also think its worth remembering that just because software or hardware includes a normalization function, that doesnt mean everyone should use it or even rely on it. For myself if Im doing a high quality sound project I'm going to avoid it at all costs. But if I'm working on production for radio or anything where I need to get things done fast...normalization is a great tool.
 
The Masterlink has a pretty decent limiter. Just set it for a few dbs of limiting and set the output to -.05. I usually end up putting around 3db of limiting on my rough mixes to bring up the level.
 
When you normalize, you are basically raising the volume of the selected audio so that the loudest audio peak is at 0db. The only benefit I have found from normalizing is that it makes it easier for me to set my compressor. If I know the loudest peak of the track is set to 0db, then pulling the threshold of my comp down to -5db will effect 5db of the audio somehwere. It helps me guage things a little better. I can use all the help I can get!

The down side is whenever you manipulate any digital audio, the wordlength is extended and if the wordlength gets longer than your software is designed to handle it does what is called 'truncating' where it effectively chops off the numbers beyond the acceptable wordlength. This, I believe, is what greggybud was referring to about degrading the sound.

A lot of babble to say it's not a big deal either way!
 
i normalize all my tracks and put the faders to 0 db for panning i set the tracks alternatly left-right and the eq i get from one of theeze what to cut-boost for what instrument pages.

saves me the trouble of mixing and sounds awesome!!!
 
saves me the trouble of mixing and sounds awesome!!!
Click to expand...

Ha Ha ! faderbug that's some sweet advice !
In fact sometimes I just whistle the song which save me the trouble of recording it ! :D
kylen
 
I hum, usually alternating between "hmm, hmm, hmm", "doo, da, da", "brrr-brrmm- kssshh" on drums, and of course "waa-waa, wee-ow, meedly-meedly" on guits.
 
yes yes yes yes and when i don't like the results i squeeeeeze the signal through this cracked fix-your-mix-with-just-one-braincell plug-in i got from kazaa to make it sound even more awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rock and roll rules.

if i'd had known how easy this all is i would've gotten in the mixing bizz years ago.
 
For the last two albums I've done, I've normalized about 80% of the songs, but you gotta understand I'm a light hand on all the settings all the time.

I compress individual tracks, but just a bit. I add reverb, but only a bit. When I mix, I get the whole thing with the peaks hitting about -1dB. Then just before I convert the file to CD standard, I very often limit about 2-3 dB to get rid of the highest peaks. Then I normalize the whole thing to about 99.99% so as to MAKE THE WHOLE TRACK LOUDER SO THAT WHEN SOMEBODY PLAYS MY CD THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET UP AND TURN UP THE VOLUME. Then I convert/dither down.

I reckon the limiting/normalizing procedure is legitimate for a couple of reasons: it makes life easier for the listener, and it doesn't degrade the sound.
 
That's some good advice from dobro !

Limiting then Normalizing is almost the same as limiting and adjusting a fader. The added bonus is that normalizing establishes a ceiling beyond which no peak may pass so you will never go in to the red. That is if you use the limiter follwed by normalizer texhnique as dobro described. And with 24bit or 32bit wave files rounding errors shouldn't be an issue during that one last step. You shouldn't be able to hear any negative effects of normalizing in this scenerio - if there are any !

If you're using normalize in the masterlink it has 40bit floating point wordlength in its' DSP and a look-ahead peak limiter.

From the Masterlink FAQs:
http://www.alesis.com/support/faqs/ml9600_main.html

How do I get the hottest signal onto my CDs?

First, record the signal as hot as possible onto the MasterLink, without going above the 0 dB mark. Then, you can use the MasterLink's built-in DSP compression and look-ahead peak limiting to maximize the apparent loudness of a track. If you still have some headroom left, you can use the Normalizing DSP feature to raise the gain to the highest level possible on a CD.


This is the same process dobro cited - only he's working at 32bit probably in Cool Edit Pro (right dobro ?)

Normalize is the most foolproof way for masterlink to get you right at the highest point just under the ceiling for CD media (if you're worried about that).

If you just use the look-ahead limiter to push up close to the ceiling it may or may not overshoot .1dB or .3dB (some of my look-aheads do that) depending on the balance of the program. If it does overshoot .2dB and you're already at -.1dB then you just made a coaster (digital overs & distortion).

Hope this helps

BTW - your initial post said "Someone explain please why we do not normalize an entire mix." Where did you get that information - I've seen that same thing around here from time to time - there are a few different scenerios where normalization could be used if you want.

It's just a tool - if it helps to make a better product faster then I use it. If it makes a bad product then don't use it. If it destroys something upstream later on then it gets a little tricky - this should be the last DSP calculation right before dither though so there is nothing else upstream.

kylen
 
I still can't beleive how widely misunderstood normalizing is by most people........! :eek:

It's nothing more than gain control, pure and simple - think of it as a fader.

If you're using a limiter, there's absolutely no reason at all to use Normalization afterwards. Limiting is already raising your level (and doing a better job of it than normalizing ever could).

All you're doing putting normalization in after limiting is an unnecessary DSP operation, which degrades the audio by a digital generation.........
 
I still can't beleive how widely misunderstood normalizing is by most people........!
Click to expand...

Yep - agreed Blue Bear ! ;)

jmorris - did we all mix you up or do you know what to do when using your masterlink ?

Happy New Year !
kylen
 
Jmorris, just read Tex's post and Blue Bear's last post. . . that should do it.

(and subtlety police, someone missed a BlueBear relay to kylen: stop normalizing!)
 
mallcorepop - OK thanks for the big tip ! ;)
Be nice or you might find a brown-paper wrapped package on your doorstep with a BBE in it - special delivery to you! He He I might even have the postman light it first :D

OK then - back to normalization, not just picking on you mallcore.

The thing is a lot of technology has come and gone from the 16bit days where Bob katz put out the word that normalization was bad. Check out his article where he states:

"Do not change gain (changing gain deteriorates sound by forcing truncation of extra wordlengths in a 16-bit workstation). Do not normalize (normalization is just changing gain). Do not equalize. Do not fade in or fade out. "

http://www.digido.com/index/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=27/

Over time people build on this thru forums and folklore and after a while normalization is bad forever ! Well things are now 24/32/40 bits - times change!

Other forums besides this one are struggling with the same DAW-DSP normalization legacy, check out this thread over at the SOS forum:

http://sound-on-sound2.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=215094572&f=884099644&m=3303048847&p=1

But trying to give jmorris a hand - if you take a look in the masterlink manual:

http://www.alesis.com/downloads/manuals/MasterLink_Manual.pdf

This shows the masterlink block diagram indicating the limiter preceedes the normalizer, in fact the normalizer is last in the signal chain.

The Alesis normalization algorithm from the manual is:
"A Normalizer's function is to scan a Track for the highest peak value, determine the ratio between that peak value and full-scale, and multiply the Track by that ratio so that the highest peak value of the Track is equal to full-scale."

So although the normalizer is a bit like a fader it has the additional property of never going over full scale (in the case of masterlink) - 0dBFS which is the maximum amplitude level a digital CD can reproduce without [converter] distortion. Normalization does not change the dynamic content of the music - just how close it peaks to the 'digital ceiling' which in this case is 0dB.

So after all of this, why would you use the normalizer on the masterlink - well maybe you won't want to. It depends on how hard you want to hit the limiter I think. The limiter in the masterlink is a kind of 'upward limiter' meaning that as it limits 1dB it will also automatically raise the output 1dB as a makeup gain. The output setting for the limiter is just a maximum ceiling but also throttles back the automatic makeup gain otherwise - according to the manual - the makeup gain would attempt to find 0dBFS.

It looks to me like if I want to push the limiter hard and squish my audio then I might not need the normalizer in the masterlink. If I just wanted to push the peaks down a bit then in order to block the upward [dynamic] makeup gain I would use the limiter output setting lower and then the normalizer to have the final gain set to 0dbFS on the CD.

If you're mastering your own CDR then the DSP features of the masterlink (compressor, eq, limiter, normalize) are there for you to 'finalize' your mix. If you're going to send the CDR to a mastering house ask what they need - they'll say not to put any DSP on it I'll bet !

I don't have a masterlink so it might be time for someone who owns one to chime in here !

kylen
PS (just kidding about the BBE mallcore - I'm starting to think about plugging it in again for a track or 2)
 
Last edited:
There are 3 reasons I consider the use of normalization unnecessary --

1) Many novices use it in a misguided attempt to raise overall level. They have forgotten, or are not aware of the fact that overall level is frequency-dependent to our ears, and so, you cannot effectively use a peak-based function such as normalizing to affect apparent loudness.

2) Every digital process DOES drop the signal quality down a digital generation - this may or may not be important to you... but consider that you really should know what you're doing to your signal before you do it.

3) Many novices (again!) tend to use it as an excuse for not setting tracking levels properly.... "oh - I never worry about levels -- if I'm too low, I just normalize to bring it up..." -- er, no... not good... the idea is to maintain a good s/n ratio - if you don't get your tracking or mixing levels right, then your signal is closer than necessary to the noise floor, and if you normalize, you'll raise the noise floor along with the signal, which is a no-no if you care at all about sound quality.


If you do know what's going on with your signal and how normalizing fits in, more power to you, but the fact is, there are far more newb, novice and intermediate recordists whose level of understanding falls into one of the three points I've raised above and abuse the normalizing process accordingly.

It really is all about understanding what's going on with your signal at ALL points in the process -- know what you're doing with it before you fuck with it!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top