wheelema
Boner-obo
Or is that a function of mastering?
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Yep. Audio>Process>Normalize. It definitely would not be considered a 'function of mastering' tho. The only thing normalizing is really good for in my opinion, is for transferring media from another format. Like making a stupid mixtape for your ex girlfriend from old cassettes. lol
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I don't think I've normalized a file since the early 90's...
R
rocksure
New member
Yep I second that. Normalizing is not something I ever do, or can ever see a need to do.
Guitargodgt
New member
Never use the normalize function myself.
RawDepth
New member
I don't see anything wrong with it for occasional editing purposes. I've used it already to raise the volume of a weak instrument track...so that I didn't have to push the mixer fader far up into the +.
arcadeko
Illuminatius Overlordious
I normalize everything. I got so many different levels being recorded, it's easier than constantly adjusting the gain on the mixer
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
I'm curious as to why your recording levels are so varied, and to what level you are normalizing to?
TyphoidHippo
1Trillion K Platinum User
Weird... I find normalizing to be counter-productive. Usually tracks are around the same volume RMS, but the peaks are wildly varied, so normalizing just throws relative volumes all over the place. Wavelab has a "Normalize RMS" function, that I *think* I would find useful if included into Cubase at some point, however...
RawDepth
New member
Normalize can be done two ways, using RMS or using waveform peaks. My DAW can do it either way, however, I always choose peaks. That way, it is the same as simply turning up the volume. The waveform is unchanged otherwise.
Example: If the highest peak is at -20 and the lowest peak is at -45, and I normalize peaks to -10, then my "tallest" peak would end up at -10 and my lowest peak would be at -35. It would simply shift everything upward by 10 dB, using the tallest peak as the reference point.
Example: If the highest peak is at -20 and the lowest peak is at -45, and I normalize peaks to -10, then my "tallest" peak would end up at -10 and my lowest peak would be at -35. It would simply shift everything upward by 10 dB, using the tallest peak as the reference point.
Guitargodgt
New member
Normalizing brings up the noise floor so that is the reason I don't like doing it.
RawDepth
New member
...As does turning up the fader.
GazEcc
mBallstát atá tiomanta
After I've finished a track I normally normalise it but rarely if ever the individual tracks,
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
Why are so many people normalizing? Are your tracks all recorded at different volumes so you just want some consistency? I mean, you can do whatever you want, I just see more problems coming from this.
I record as close to -18 (whatever the digital scale is called) as possible to maximize my analog end without clipping, and maximize possible headroom on the digital side, and too keep all my tracks consistent. Normalizing will just turn all those -18's up. I think most people will run into more gain staging issues with normalizing than just using faders. If everything is too quiet, turn up the monitors and leave all that nice headroom for mastering.
I have only normalized a DI bass track that was done without a direct box or active pickups, even with the faders maxed it wasn't close to the other tracks...but it raised the noise so much it was almost worthless.
I record as close to -18 (whatever the digital scale is called) as possible to maximize my analog end without clipping, and maximize possible headroom on the digital side, and too keep all my tracks consistent. Normalizing will just turn all those -18's up. I think most people will run into more gain staging issues with normalizing than just using faders. If everything is too quiet, turn up the monitors and leave all that nice headroom for mastering.
I have only normalized a DI bass track that was done without a direct box or active pickups, even with the faders maxed it wasn't close to the other tracks...but it raised the noise so much it was almost worthless.
arcadeko
Illuminatius Overlordious
My drum track is a kit triggering EZdrummer samples - so that set's the bass line volume for the track. If I am recording with my drummer and we are playing a song through the PA, the volumes are good for the guitar. Later when I am retracking the guitar I often have the amp turned down a lot farther, so I get a real low level, if I normalize it brings up the volume to where I can use the faders without adding an amp VST.
With vocals, it depends on what settings I have on my pre-amp and how loud I am singing, but I often get a signal that is too quiet.
Normalizing doesn't change the signal quality, it just brings it up to a ful level right?
I usually normalize to 0...
C
chuckduffy
Well-known member
Trim knob is good for that...
C
chuckduffy
Well-known member
My general rule of thumb is I don't do anything to an audio file (even if it is kinda non-destructive via undo) that I can do another way. I use the trim knob for low level tracks. On the extremely rare time that I use normalize I do it to -.5 or so as 0 is a good place to avoid...
arcadeko
Illuminatius Overlordious
my normalization in cubase doesn't allow half steps - isn't zero the peak of the wave without clipping? What difference does it make if it's -18, -.5 or 0? it doesn't affect the signal, it just makes it easier for me to mix it. You think my mix will sound better if I reduce the amount of normalization I use? From my understanding it does nothing at all to the original wave except equally increases the volume?
Actually since I got my new amp it seems I haven't had to normalize any of the guitar or bass tracks - so now its usually only vocals.
C
chuckduffy
Well-known member
If I did normalize I wouldn't go anywhere near 0 as cause I ALWAYS leave room for plugs that add gain..... I need to keep things simple cause I'm stupid - so I tend to do my gain changes with faders, trims and automation like on a board.
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
If you have a specific reason it can make sense. But I think for most, normalizing is a bigger problem than it fixes. If that's how your workflow works best, I guess it's not a big problem. I just don't want a ton of people to get the idea that they need to normalize every track and then run into bigger problems (like running out of headroom)...just turn up the preamp and monitors and get the levels right tracking.
For example, if the guitar track is really low why can't you just turn up the preamp? If the vocals are really low the same? If something is really dynamic, you can set the preamp so the peak isn't clipping and some parts may be really low comparatively. I just think a lot of normalizing is done because gain stagging isn't done from the beginning.
I think you're right that it doesn't hurt anything, just turns the volume up (I think). Even with a quiet source more preamp gain can get levels even.
For example, if the guitar track is really low why can't you just turn up the preamp? If the vocals are really low the same? If something is really dynamic, you can set the preamp so the peak isn't clipping and some parts may be really low comparatively. I just think a lot of normalizing is done because gain stagging isn't done from the beginning.
I think you're right that it doesn't hurt anything, just turns the volume up (I think). Even with a quiet source more preamp gain can get levels even.