Normalization method?

[YanKleber]

What is the standard method for normalize all the songs of an album?

It is made 'by ear' or there is a plugin/software for this purpose?
It is done during the mastering process or it is a further step AFTER mastering?



Thanks!

 

[MrWrenchey]

I'm assuming by normalize you just mean how to make all the songs the same level (loudness)?

Yeah, it's basically just done by ear. I had a guy in yesterday that was basically just doing Karaoke to 17 songs. Because they're all recordings done by different artists, the mixes are different, and I had to set my mastering chain differently for each. I basically just adjusted the limiter until the levels sounded the same. Easy.

If I were mastering an album, I'd usually just print out the individual mixes (unmastered) from their sessions, then create a single "mastering" session and import all the mixes. Then just master one at a time and check against the previous masters in the session to make sure the loudness was appx. the same.

Simple enough, just use your ears. Don't use your eyes, because the program I was using for a limiter (Slate FGX) has built in RMS readings, but those weren't as accurate as my ears. Some songs were averaging around 1-2 dB louder/quieter than others, but when I played them back compared to the others, they sounded the same level. The artist actually asked me as we were bouncing one out if I forgot to level match one because the meters looked lower, but when I skipped back to one of the old masters, he said they sounded the same. =]

 

[YanKleber]

Cool, thanks for the tip!

 

[JimmyS1969]

Cool, thanks for the tip!

See. There is that geological or language thing coming up again. One language has different typical meanings for the same terms that another uses... No big deal. We move forward.

'Normalize' is a typical function in a DAW that sets output level to a point consistent with the highest peak on the track placing the gain at on level so nothing clips. This is nothing like 'limiting' or any type of 'compression'.


Yes, one part of 'mastering' involves making a group of tracks cohesive in volume. There is much more to it than just that.

Actual volume (or as I have heard friends in Germany speak of as 'pressure') is something that can be measured by some tools and meters, but in the end it is the ears that determine what is right.

A meter can't tell you if the eq is wrong for any given track. It can't tell you if the compression is causing the low end to 'pump'. Only a good set of actual human ears can tell you that. Well, if your dog starts howling, you may want to do something different...lol

Hope any of this helps man.

 

[MrWrenchey]

See. There is that geological or language thing coming up again. One language has different typical meanings for the same terms that another uses... No big deal. We move forward.

Hahaha, that's what made it easy for me to interpret the question was because I know he's ESL. I feel a lot of misunderstandings would be cut short if we all had our locations set...

 

[JimmyS1969]

Hahaha, that's what made it easy for me to interpret the question was because I know he's ESL. I feel a lot of misunderstandings would be cut short if we all had our locations set...

It really should just be a mandatory thing. Even if not, best for anyone to just make it clear what language they normally speak.

I suck on 15 or so fags a day. In US, I would be considered a slutty homosexual for saying that. In Europe, just a smoker.

Aw shit. Start the flame war now. lol!

 

[YanKleber]

Yes, one part of 'mastering' involves making a group of tracks cohesive in volume. There is much more to it than just that.

When I said normalize, yes, I was meaning this.

 

[JimmyS1969]

When I said normalize, yes, I was meaning this.

Because of your location and posts here before, I realized that.

All good man!

 

[YanKleber]

What would be the correct term to "put one or more songs at the same 'aparent' level" other than normalization?

 

[JimmyS1969]

What would be the correct term to "put one or more songs at the same 'aparent' level" other than normalization?

'Mastering' would be much more appropriate.

The 'Normalize' function only reduces gain to set maximum peak level to a certain point. That has nothing to do with getting tracks at a consistent volume or output level.

That is done by control of the peaks in mixing and likely a limiter and or compression in the mastering stage. This involves use of ears and listening environment. Not a click of the process typically called 'Normalize'.

That is why I pointed it out. What is obvious that what you wish to do is not what you initially called it, meant. Not to most here anyway.

It's all good man.

 

[YanKleber]

But Jimmy, I really don't understand this. And that's why. When I think about 'mastering' it comes to my mind the final touch of a mixed song in order to make it more commercial, with a louder volume and more compression. OK, so if you are mastering an entire album you CAN put all them in the same output level in mastering process.

But what if a band record 10 tunes along several months and the songs are mixed and mastered in different studios by different engineers as they are going to be released one by one. Then, after a year doing that the band decides to compile all the songs in an album. But they are at different levels because they were mastered in different studios, by different people, in different times. Now suppose that they do NOT want that the songs be remixed or remastered. They want them as is, but only with a leveling of volume.

So how do you call this process? Is THIS that I am referring to. It is called 'mastering' too? Like a mastering of a master? Or remastering? Or what? Or maybe there is NOT an specific name just for this task?

And about the process itself, how it is done when the songs already are mastered? You master it again using only the stereo final version?

Sorry, I am really confused!

 

[ashcat_lt]

I'd call that re-mastering, myself. Mastering is the process where you put the finishing touches on any collection of material such that it works as a cohesive whole. If that's just one track, fine. If it's ten tracks, same, even if they were previously "mastered" individually.

Normalization is a tool that one might use to aid in the process, especially if it allows you to do RMS or average normalizing. Most of the Normalize tools out there are peak only, but there are a few...

It's still not going to be as good as actually listening and making your own evaluation. Frankly, if unless all of the songs are almost exactly the same, it'll probably just be a mess. Some songs are supposed to be subjectively louder than others, and they should be allowed to be so.

I like to put all of the mixes in one project like MrWrenchy said, but then I will usually end up skipping around almost randomly along that master timeline listening for a second or two at a time and then jumping to some other song. Our brains aren't great at remembering the volume of something we heard five minutes ago relative to what we're hearing now. The quick jump thing makes it a little easier. I also listen carefully to the transition points. A lot of times it actually works best to focus on just the most important element of each song - the vocal, maybe the drums - and try to match their level between songs, and let the rest of the mix fall where it must.

I agree with Jimmy that EQ is at least as important as overall volume for making two or more songs sound like a cohesive package. They need to sort of "live in the same space". It's kind of difficult to describe, but it's pretty obvious when you hear it. If one song is way sizzly and the next is pretty dark. That sort of thing.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Well that is now a more detailed description of what it is you are asking.

That would be a different situation. It is tough to get recordings done at different times/places/engineers to ever sound cohesive unless you have access to the tracks and attempt to remix them all at once.

Sure, there are things you can do to level out the volumes. I suppose Normalize might actually work for levels if they sounded near the same.

The problem I foresee is the fact that you say these were already mastered by different studios, yet you have a volume issue.

That says to me that none of it has been mastered and it is time to make that happen.

Fuck dood, send me the damn tracks. I can even up the volume in 30 minutes.

Or send it to a pro and get it done right.

 

[YanKleber]

Thanks Ashcat and Jimmy for all the clarification!

Fuck dood, send me the damn tracks. I can even up the volume in 30 minutes.

LOL, thank you very much for the offer Jimmy, however it was just an hipotetical situation as I would like to know what to do in such case (I suppose that it is something that may happen in the life of a professional producer).

In my case, specifically, it 'kind' of will happen. I am a self producer and should take a few months until have an entire album to release. In the meantime I am mixing and releasing the tunes one by one, so I am sure that at the end I may have an unbalanced level set. My real doubt was about how to level them together, and you guys already told me how to do that. I think that I can solve it by simply remastering the mastered versions by putting them all in a same project and playing with the master volumes until I achieve what I think is OK.

Or send it to a pro and get it done right.

Yah, I know that it would be the ideal solution. However I am trying to do everything myself for cash saving purposes. You know I am producing these music as a hobby and I have spent more of the family budget than I supposed to with instruments, some equip, etc.

 

[ashcat_lt]

In that case, I'd try to go back to the "un-mastered" mix files if they exist, put them on the timeline and then master the final compilation as a whole. Might not make much difference depending on how much of what you end up doing, but if it turns out that you want to "undo" some of the compression on one of the already mastered tracks...well, you can't. This will mean that the singles will sound a bit different from the "album" version, but that's not so unusual in the history of recorded music.

 

[YanKleber]

Cool, thanks for the tip, Ash!

 

[Farview]

But Jimmy, I really don't understand this. And that's why. When I think about 'mastering' it comes to my mind the final touch of a mixed song in order to make it more commercial, with a louder volume and more compression. OK, so if you are mastering an entire album you CAN put all them in the same output level in mastering process.

But what if a band record 10 tunes along several months and the songs are mixed and mastered in different studios by different engineers as they are going to be released one by one. Then, after a year doing that the band decides to compile all the songs in an album. But they are at different levels because they were mastered in different studios, by different people, in different times. Now suppose that they do NOT want that the songs be remixed or remastered. They want them as is, but only with a leveling of volume.

So how do you call this process? Is THIS that I am referring to. It is called 'mastering' too? Like a mastering of a master? Or remastering? Or what? Or maybe there is NOT an specific name just for this task?

And about the process itself, how it is done when the songs already are mastered? You master it again using only the stereo final version?

Sorry, I am really confused!

Either way, it would be remastering. The best idea would be to go back to the original mixes and master them as the new project.

If you can only get the mastered files of the singles, you are stuck finding the quietest one and turning all the others down to match that volume level.

Either way, since you are making a new master, you are remastering the project.

 

[gregoryg]

Some people call it "level matching" the tracks (as part of the larger mastering process).

 

[JimmyS1969]

Either way, it would be remastering. The best idea would be to go back to the original mixes and master them as the new project.

If you can only get the mastered files of the singles, you are stuck finding the quietest one and turning all the others down to match that volume level.

Either way, since you are making a new master, you are remastering the project.

One thing about your comment; if the file is not just an MP3, then there is no reason why you would have to lower the level of other tracks to match. You can always re-master the track that is at a lower level.

Please explain.


The most difficult issues would come from mixes that were done from sessions over years on different gear.

 

[Farview]

One thing about your comment; if the file is not just an MP3, then there is no reason why you would have to lower the level of other tracks to match. You can always re-master the track that is at a lower level.

Please explain.

I suppose my comment pre-supposed that all the songs were as loud as they could get without falling apart. When mastering a single, you can do what ever you want, but generally people will make it as loud as it can be without sounding like crap. Some songs have the potential to be louder than others simply because of the instrumentation and arrangement, other songs will never get that loud without being destroyed. You would have to match the one that can't go any farther, since you can always make something quieter without any sonic compromise.