i'm actually going to get into full mixing

  • Thread starter Thread starter dobro
  • Start date Start date
dobro

dobro

Well-known member
Two questions:

1 When mixing down, EQ>effects>dynamics processing. Any disadvantages to that sequence of steps?

2 If you're not really bothered about whether your CD decapitates people with loudness, then compressing the mix is really more of a mastering step than a mixing step, right? If you don't care if your CD isn't really loud, then why not just normalize as a final step?
 
I have NEVER "normalized" a recording! Not once... In the context of an album it makes no sense to do, and since it's peak-based, doesn't really add much unless the signal is very weak to begin with - which is almost never the case with a mix! Plus it raises the noise floor - a big no-no....

And Dobro - you know you shouldn't be patching in that compressor unless the mix needs it in the first place! ;)

Bruce
 
ive read somewhere that stated normalizing is the biggest mistake going on in digital home recording, and i havent used it since.....

BB,

I disagree...before i even throw the faders up i put in 2 verbs,2comp,and 1 delay plugins......is this why my mixes suck:D
 
I thought all normalization did was turn everything up? I just figured I can't go to everyone's house and make them listen to my stuff at a certain volume, so why would it matter?

Hey gidge, master of links, can you find a link to that article?

Thanks
 
Mr Fogarty - a couple of years ago, Sonusman ran a thread here that said what a waste of time normalization was. I took on his opinion (although I didn't understand his reasons), and as I recall, nobody endorsed his view, and nobody who sounded like they had experience challenged it. With this thread, I was just waving the idea around to see if the wind had changed, because on the face of it, normalization makes a lot of sense to me - you don't squish the dynamics with compression, you just bump the highest peak up to 0 dB.

However... I don't really understand the opinions of Blue Bear and Gidge about normalizing, but I've learned to *read and respect* their recording/mixing opinions generally, not to mention Sonusman :). I don't have time for full understanding - I've already started to mix this album. :D

Sometimes you run blind, and that's what I'm going to do to a certain extent here. EQ, effects, and compression only as needed. No normalizing. Simple, right? :)
 
The process of bringing the peaks up to 0db has 2 main problems....

1) raising the noise floor -- raising the level digitally is a very simple process - simply multiply the samples by the amount needed to move the peak level up to 0db (or whatever value is selected)

So that's exactly what happens - if the multiplier value is 1.5, then each sample is multiplied by that amount and the signal level gets raised. 2 issues -- digital arithmetic operations affect the integrity of the original samples and round-off error can occur in the multiplying process - this has the potential for degrading the sound. The other issue is that the noise floor of the original signal also gets raised - making it possibly much more audible.

2) the relative balance between songs -- in an album context, normalizing makes no sense.

Here's an example -- let's say Joe Novice has a cd of 3 songs: 1 - hard rock, 2 - soft ballad, 3 - even harder rock.... when he mixes it he finds that the hard rock tunes peak at -2db from full-scale, while the ballad is -6db away. When listened to in sequence (hard - soft- harder), the hard rock tune jumps out (in a good way), the ballad then comes in appropriately softer, then the harder rock tunes jump out even further (also in a good way).

Now his self-proclaimed engineering guru buddy (who knows all the tricks and can't imagine why HE'S not the next George Massenburg) mentions that "you NEED to normalize, man -- otherwise it just sucks!" So Joe Novice does.... And listens to the results in the same sequence... hardly any change in the first tune -- ah - here comes that soft easy ballad - BANG! ...that ballad snare jumps out and kills the entire mood of dynamics between the first and second song... hmmm... 3rd song comes on and it now sounds weak.

What the fuck??? Could his "knowledgeable" buddy have been wrong???? Yes.... the guy's an idiot! ;)


What Happened???
Normalizing raised the level of the soft ballad to almost that of the harder-edged tunes, destroying and dynamic buildup or mood that was created by the original contrasting levels. This is EXACTLY the kind of dynamics you WANT in a sequence of songs - and in one quick DSP action - you killed it completely.

This is the reason "normalizing" is not a pro's tool, but more "rookie buzzword."

JUST SAY NO to normalizing!

:D


Bruce
 
Last edited:
Are you guys saying no normalization ever, or just no normalization on a the master file of a song? Cause sometime when I mix stuff, I'll have one track that needs to be upfront, but has too low of a level to be turned up high enough. Should I just be tracking my stuff better?
 
All these rules about normalization and EQ are just guidelines for a clean recording. If it sounds better (totaly subjective) with normalization and EQ then by all means do it.

If you dont have the experience to know if it sounds better or not than dont do it.
 
1) raising the noise floor >
Yes. Just like it would be if you raised the fader level. But why chance adding yet another set of math conversion errors on all the tracks? Relative track level is just as well delt with on the faders.
2) the relative balance between songs -- in an album context, normalizing makes no sense. >
Relative song level is better controled by; 1) the peak-to-average levels of the indivdual tracks (ie; compression/peak limiting/playing style, ect.) and the dynamics of the mix as a whole.
And 2) Pulling the mixes up or back in the final assembly stage.
Rember that the dynamics of the song effects the 'apperent' volume for a given peak level, and also partly determins how 'hot' it will sound relative to full scale and the other songs.

Sometimes just clipping the few highest peaks allows the whole song to be brought up (ie; the 'maximizers).

Heaven forbid we should ever reduce the level of a song just to have dynamic contrast.
It seems more like, more is more, is more, is more, is more...
:)
 
Sorry to stray so much. Guess I picked up on Blues' 'We normalize everyting right after making coffee.' advice. :)

So why not normalize the mix if you don't hear any losses? But if your mix is within a few db of max anyway, and your not doing it to eek out the last bit of volume...? I guess I don't understand any other use for normalizing.

Only part of the stuff I've done gets to go to mastering so use some salt here, but I still perfer to (often) compress the mixes. It's part of the sound we are going for (the main reason) and, it's generally done when we finish. (the other reason:))
I'd like to feel that when it does get mastered, they don't have much to do. That's the goal, right?
 
Bruce,

Anyone that says less processing is more has my vote, GT said as he maxed out the Nano compressor. Just kidding!

GT
 
Bruce (and everyone else)-

From what I am gathering right now, FM Radio is what is pushing normalization....at least it's pushing hotter and hotter levels. True, other means should be used to get as loud as possible, but it is a competition on FM radio to stand out, this applies to songs and commercials alike, you want people to listen, and lots of producers demand the levels as hot as possible so they "stick out" from the other music (though that other music has the same dynamics going on these days) so a ballad on the radio is the same volume level as a hard hitting song. Radio wants a cut ready to go... and to them louder is better, 0db = "radio friendly".

I am talking about making music to make $$. This is pop people do it for a living. If you are an artist and have different motivation for your sound, like knowing it will never be on FM radio across the country, then hot levels are not as important I think.

H2H
 
I thought that FM stations would just even out the levels so that they sound the same. Zepplin songs on the radio never sound low, even though their albums are usually lower than normal. Same with beatles tunes. But they never seem low on the radio...
 
J's right -- radio doesn't "normalize" -- they "compress-the-shit-outta-it!"

:eek:
 
I got a real eye opener on compression and modern music. I took two CDs, Allman Brothers (Eat a Peach) and one by Tool that I don't recall the name of, and ripped a song from each into the computer. Brought each one up in Soundforge and looked at the wave forms. The Allman Bros. tune looked like a wave form with peaks at about -3dBFS or so. The Tool tune looked like a black stripe from start to finish with just about the whole tune riding at -.1dBFS. NO dynamic range. A product of the loudest CD on the block contest.
 
Yeah Track Rat -- I experimented too (I posted this a while back) - describing the level differences I heard as I listened to a series of songs from the 70's/80's/90's...

The peak dynamic range changed and narrowed as we got closer to 2000.... some of the 70's cuts had a peak dynamic range of 12-15db... in the 80's it was maybe 7-10db, then late 90's - 0db! Those meters were pinned within seconds of the start of the song, and STAYED that way till the end.

Bruce
 
At one point I was looking at getting cable radio, untill I heard it at a friend's house- CompressedToShit again!
This pisses me off. I cut radio some slack. They have coverage range and high background noise in cars as an excuse to ruin the sound. So now "Digital Quality" home hi fi music needs it? What, to emulate the sound of radio! Not!

I'll shut up now.
 
You should try that experiment with Beck Albums. Those are the loudest albums I've ever heard. Especially Odelay. (the one with Where its at)
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
J's right -- radio doesn't "normalize" -- they "compress-the-shit-outta-it!"

:eek:
Click to expand...

Too much compression will raise the noise floor even more than normalization, won't it? Man, I was getting really attached to normalizing too... I guess I'll just have to put more work into tracking instead of being lazy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top