'Normalizing' individual tracks in cubase

[billy3000]

I've read a lot of comments saying how bad it is. why is it so bad?

well, in particular, for a demo, is it really all that bad? I have some
tracks that get too loud in spots and need to be sort of......
evened out. is 'normalizing' even the right term to use?

sorry for my newbie ignorance. but....I'm an ignorant newbie

newbies is what newbies does. my first assignment from my 'tutor'
and new bidness pard'nr is to do a bunch of guitar tracks for this
strange demo he is doing with a chick singer.

some of them are too hot in spots and I just don't want to re record
all that nonsense.

the good news is I've learned a LOT about what NOT to do. so,
am I talking about normalizing or limiting? or even compression?

help! thanks.......................Bill

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Normalizing is not the right word. Typically a compressor is used to reduce the level difference between the loud parts and the quiet parts. You can also do a volume curve, manually setting the level changes.

A limiter is just a type of compressor.

 

[billy3000]

thanks bouldersoundguy

Normalizing is not the right word. Typically a compressor is used to reduce the level difference between the loud parts and the quiet parts. You can also do a volume curve, manually setting the level changes.

A limiter is just a type of compressor.

not the right word then....good! ok, in cubase sx3, I can't find anyplace
that let's me do what I want to do. there are various EQ's and compressors
in the VST section, and they're not all that cheezy looking. just not
particularly idiot proof either.

a volume curve sounds promising. is that where you place a horizontal line
across the track and snip off the high parts? obviously, too much snipping
would not be kosher. I've seen people do that, but not in cubase.

it was cool edit and sonar where I have watched people sort of trim the
high spots. can't find it in the cubase book. I found normalizing, but
I guess that is not my bag. so......back to the book I guess.

volume curve, I'll look for that. thanks!

 

[Jim Lad]

Usually there's an effects track which you can open up with each individual track. Mixcraft 5 has now adopted this as well.
The horizontal line can be redrawn to bring down the peaks and bring up the lows. By so doing, you can even out the volume along the length of the track. Cubase offers pencils and line drawers as additional tools for this purpose.
You can also use this method for Pan and Reverb, which is a huge time saver.
In some DAWs the volume line that you mentioned is visible on the track itself.
You simply click on the line to create a hinge point then click again to drag the line down and so on........
Other methods would involve highlighting areas of concern by left clicking and dragging the cursor. Now right click on the blue shaded area and select "Boost" or "Reduce" and enter by how much % you would like to alter the volume.
You have many options available to you.
Go with what works for you and enjoy.

 

[clivus]

Another method that works well in Cubase is to locate the part(s) of the track that are too hot (or soft) and use the 'split at cursor' edit to create edit points on either side of it. Then highlite that section and do a volume edit by placing the cursor on the small blue square that will appear in the middle of the section, hold down the left mouse button and and 'drag' the the cursor downward (or upward if desired). You will see the waveform get smaller (or larger) and the amount of volume change in dB will be shown.

 

[billy3000]

Thanks Much Jim And Clivus!

Another method that works well in Cubase is to locate the part(s) of the track that are too hot (or soft) and use the 'split at cursor' edit to create edit points on either side of it. Then highlite that section and do a volume edit by placing the cursor on the small blue square that will appear in the middle of the section, hold down the left mouse button and and 'drag' the the cursor downward (or upward if desired). You will see the waveform get smaller (or larger) and the amount of volume change in dB will be shown.

all the difference in ze world. thank you so much. I could not find that in the
book. though......it MAY be there. i couldn't find it, so thanks fellas.
that literally saves me doing a few tracks (all of them..lol!!) completely
over again.

 

[mattr]

Normalising just applies positive or negative gain such that the audio peaks at a predefined level... it does no kind of dynamics processing and its nothing you can't do just by adjusting the track level fader. Some misguided people religiously normalise everything because they have these strange ideas about what it actually does - don't be one of these people!

Only one thing to say... learn how compression works and use it

 

[clivus]

Only one thing to say... learn how compression works and use it

The nice thing about doing volume edits as I posted above is that it is very precise and useful to tame a too-loud section (or even mute it) without getting an overly compressed sound. I also use this method to increase the levels to bring out an instrument when needed--especially when mixing material that was recorded totally 'live' and there is no desire to do overdubbing. Another tool in the toolbox.

 

[billy3000]

Howdy Jim Lad, Clivus and Mattr!

we have a consensus almost

you 3 guys are all very cool and helpful. thanks. I'm getting good stuff
from all 3. and in my own mind, am putting it in my "time and place for
everything, and everything in it's place" folder.

I've been playing for 43 years. but only using cubase for 2 weeks.
anyway, learning how to play the way I want to play is the lesson
I'm getting from my own self critiques thus far.

and if I play something I REALLY want to keep but it has bugaboos
in it, then, all the lessons you guys imparted are most handy. again,
much thanks.

what does everyone use to record guitar with? so far I've tried
an amp in the bathroom with an SM58 and that sounds best.

I have a very old Digitech GSP21Pro also, which is 'ok' for going
direct but a little on the cheezy side. and so far I am not find of
so called VST stuff for guitar.

what sort of outboard gear do y'all use for recording the old geetar?

 

[AbuseTheMuses]

Hey sorry to chirp in late. I've been following the thread and yeah, normalizing is what people use to match the level of a master track to what is heard out of a radio station or a CD. It's just comparative volume adjustment to the highest peak you can get without distortion, it doesn't really change the sound, just turns it up. Compression in subtle ways can help you 'normalize' your track louder overall (like the way TV commercials are so much louder than soap-operas... they aren't actually louder, just compressed and then normalized so the voices can BOOM out at you)

So far as Guitar sound (this is where I decided to chime in) I use either a strat or an Ibanez twin humbucker depending on the sound I want. My strat is 'touchier' and my Ibanez is 'fatter'. I have other guitars in the junk pile but those are my main two. Run it through a fender twin simulator on my little 15w Peavey Vypyr modelling amp... with 2 SM57 off axis at each side, and one Samson condenser a foot and a half back that get some room reflections. This makes it very thick, with a 'roomy' sound. Recording a mono guitar speaker through stereo mics DOES make a difference in thickness, just because of the minor room quirks they will pick up differently, when panned hard-L and hard-R it makes it sound more like being 'engulfed' by a single guitar part.

I play rock, sometimes 'clean' sounding amp like a twin reverb or a vox gets that edgey attitude to it though if you hit hard, know your volume knob, and get your amp settings right. Distortion pedals are for people who don't get the concept of picking dynamics. If you set your amp well, you can go from plink to thrash just using your volume knob on your guitar. So what setup do you use?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Objectively, compression just changes the volume, but it does it in a way that interacts with the signal so the subjective effect can be radically different from a simple manual volume change. Depending on the settings, compression can be an effect altering the sound of the track or an automatic volume control that is relatively transparent.

 

[clivus]

I have gone totally lazy on electric guitar recording--I either use a Roland micro cube modelling amp directly in , the guitar effects in my Boss 1600 recorder, or a direct in from a Korg modelling multi effect pedal. Haven't miked up a cabinet in years. My bad!!

 

[Jim Lad]

And now I know what "Split at Cursor" means.
I've had Cubase for a while but only started taking a serious look at it last week.
Thanks, Clivus.

Billy:
You have a polite way about you.
You may call yourself a newbie but you're already teaching.

 

[billy3000]

compression? or compression?

Objectively, compression just changes the volume, but it does it in a way that interacts with the signal so the subjective effect can be radically different from a simple manual volume change. Depending on the settings, compression can be an effect altering the sound of the track or an automatic volume control that is relatively transparent.

right. I think I get what you mean. it is not knowing how to use my compressor "properly" that has always made me shy away from it. maybe
I just have a cruddy compressor.

the physical or hardware one that I have is in with a bunch of other effects
in my GSP21Pro, which is a coal burning digitech product. the reverbs and delays are really nice. the chorus is nice, if ya like chorus.

any the GSP21 compressor is easy enough to figure out. 2 settings. compression amount, and level. that's it. if it sounded neat, it might
be more fun.

it makes all kinds of terrible noise and the noise gate its SELF in that old processor is terrible and noisy. disable everything but reverb and it is ok.

SO.the compression stuff I have found in cubase are a lot more complicated
and I'm sure I'm not getting it somehow. using your comments...

>>>compression can be an effect altering the sound of the track<<<

meaning maybe altering it AFTER the fact?

>>or an automatic volume control that is relatively transparent<<

and again, (a guess) meaning preventing a lousy player (like me in spite of
the 43 years) from gertting too loud in the first place? in this spot or that spot?

 

[billy3000]

Thanks Jim Lad

And now I know what "Split at Cursor" means.
I've had Cubase for a while but only started taking a serious look at it last week.
Thanks, Clivus.

Billy:
You have a polite way about you.
You may call yourself a newbie but you're already teaching.

I do try to be polite. I'm good at a lot of stuff, but in a general sense, I
have been rightfully humbled by the world enough times to lose my arrogance.

nothing worse than a cocky guy who is always full of it. the irony of that
is just inescapable

plenty of them still out there. dumb and over confident. thanks for the nice
words about teaching. I am glad. thanks man! I just figured it out myself
about splitting the cursor. very handy eh? we can all learn from each other
and the 'not bickering' part is what please me to pieces about this thread
so far. nice little group of fellas talking shop. how quaint!

so many replies. I need to re-read yours about gear.

 

[billy3000]

abuse the muses eh?

Hey sorry to chirp in late. I've been following the thread and yeah, normalizing is what people use to match the level of a master track to what is heard out of a radio station or a CD. It's just comparative volume adjustment to the highest peak you can get without distortion, it doesn't really change the sound, just turns it up. Compression in subtle ways can help you 'normalize' your track louder overall (like the way TV commercials are so much louder than soap-operas... they aren't actually louder, just compressed and then normalized so the voices can BOOM out at you)

So far as Guitar sound (this is where I decided to chime in) I use either a strat or an Ibanez twin humbucker depending on the sound I want. My strat is 'touchier' and my Ibanez is 'fatter'. I have other guitars in the junk pile but those are my main two. Run it through a fender twin simulator on my little 15w Peavey Vypyr modelling amp... with 2 SM57 off axis at each side, and one Samson condenser a foot and a half back that get some room reflections. This makes it very thick, with a 'roomy' sound. Recording a mono guitar speaker through stereo mics DOES make a difference in thickness, just because of the minor room quirks they will pick up differently, when panned hard-L and hard-R it makes it sound more like being 'engulfed' by a single guitar part.

I play rock, sometimes 'clean' sounding amp like a twin reverb or a vox gets that edgey attitude to it though if you hit hard, know your volume knob, and get your amp settings right. Distortion pedals are for people who don't get the concept of picking dynamics. If you set your amp well, you can go from plink to thrash just using your volume knob on your guitar. So what setup do you use?

I like that name! ok, I have several amps. many now are in my own personal
museum.

my all purpose amp is a really old randall with a cool sounding pre gain
post gain feature and a lot of knobs for EQ. 4 I think. a lot of times there's
bass & treble. neat old amp. and I use an old floor monitor with a gaping
hole where the horn used to be. a guy who used to do speaker reconing
here in phoenix gave it to me empty. free. and I bought a used Gauss 12"
guitar speaker from the guy and put it in the cab. it sounds really really good.
the Gauss is older than dirt with a humongous magnet. I used to use that stuff to
play live and it was kill proof, like peavey. I like the idea of your own stuff.
smaller.

I'm going to buy a thing called a 10-16-50 MOD jensen speaker and try that.
the 10 is 10", it takes 50 watts, and is 16 ohm. thought that might punch up
the overdrive a little more than the Gauss.

about distortion pedals, I mostly agree. if someone made a neat one, it would
be interesting I have a tube screamer (Ibanez) that I used live when I
was still playing. it sounds kinda icky in the 'studio'...at least in my home
studio, it's iffy. the randall sounds better without it. and I have a digitech processor which is, as I said, 'ok' sort of. it's best at extermely low gain and
using light reverb. it's actually pretty cool for acoustic guitars with pickups.
I've had it 20 years, and haven't learned to love it. though, I guess I don't
HATE it either. it'll be a nice paperweight for one of my grand kids,
'cept I'm too old for that now

also have a 68 deluxe reverb which may get dragged out of it's vault one
day soon here. very nice old amp.

I love the randall. I tried that first, and then because of room/house/space
logistics settled for the digitech for several tracks.

when you use 3 mikes, are they all going on seperate mono tracks?

 

[billy3000]

I have gone totally lazy on electric guitar recording--I either use a Roland micro cube modelling amp directly in , the guitar effects in my Boss 1600 recorder, or a direct in from a Korg modelling multi effect pedal. Haven't miked up a cabinet in years. My bad!!

clivus, if that stuff sounds cool, then cool! high tech is our friend except
when it isn't. my stuff has never done what I want it to, which is to sound
good right out of the box

tweaking modelers and processors is in itself an art form, which all players
(like me) aint got or don't have patience for. I've not used a roland cube
modeler. heard good stuff about em though. also Korg. lately even digitech
stuff is getting a better reputation. but not quite great
gotta have a big house to crank an amp and mike it. I can only get away
with it once in awhile.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

SO.the compression stuff I have found in cubase are a lot more complicated
and I'm sure I'm not getting it somehow. using your comments...

>>>compression can be an effect altering the sound of the track<<<

meaning maybe altering it AFTER the fact?

If by that you mean after recording, yes. Using attack, release and ratio controls you can alter the balance between attack and decay. You can cause rhythmic pulsing of a track that wasn't there originally.

>>or an automatic volume control that is relatively transparent<<

and again, (a guess) meaning preventing a lousy player (like me in spite of
the 43 years) from getting too loud in the first place? in this spot or that spot?

To a point. Trying too hard to fix dynamics with a compressor can push it from just controlling level to being a blatant effect, like it or not. Then a manual volume change or re-tracking is called for.

Some compressors are prized because the can squash the heck out of a track without obvious effects, and others are sought after specifically because they have desired effects besides just controlling level.

 

[billy3000]

ok boulder sound guy

If by that you mean after recording, yes. Using attack, release and ratio controls you can alter the balance between attack and decay. You can cause rhythmic pulsing of a track that wasn't there originally.



To a point. Trying too hard to fix dynamics with a compressor can push it from just controlling level to being a blatant effect, like it or not. Then a manual volume change or re-tracking is called for.

Some compressors are prized because the can squash the heck out of a track without obvious effects, and others are sought after specifically because they have desired effects besides just controlling level.

I'm diggin this discussion by the way. so much brain work for me to
do after all the years of just practicing chops and all that. being able
to control what one plays (within reason) either live or live in the studio
so to speak sounds like the best plan.

you spoke of compressors that are coveted because they do squash
the heck out of a track without obvious effects. what about playing live?

what would you yourself use? here's a thought for me, which all you
guys can have much 2 cents about. a level meter. but what?
I wouldn't know a good one if I found it in me soup.

so say for example, onstage, if ya don't rely on the sound guy ALL
the time, could a player have his own level meter to see what changes
occur from one effect to another? or from one style of playing to another?

sure, different stuff calls for different levels. there's such a thing as not
having enough gain too, when one is supposed to be doing solos etc..
so knowing where it's at sounds like a good idea. easier for the soundman
too I should think.

a neat level meter. I can look at them all day on the internet or in
the store. never touched one before. a brand and model # would be
grand from any of you fellers IF anyone uses such a thing.

thanks much!

oh, and it sounds like there's all the compression and limiting I need
in cubase, if I figure out how to use it. ok, cheers!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I'm diggin this discussion by the way. so much brain work for me to
do after all the years of just practicing chops and all that. being able
to control what one plays (within reason) either live or live in the studio
so to speak sounds like the best plan.

you spoke of compressors that are coveted because they do squash
the heck out of a track without obvious effects. what about playing live?

what would you yourself use? here's a thought for me, which all you
guys can have much 2 cents about. a level meter. but what?
I wouldn't know a good one if I found it in me soup.

so say for example, onstage, if ya don't rely on the sound guy ALL
the time, could a player have his own level meter to see what changes
occur from one effect to another? or from one style of playing to another?

sure, different stuff calls for different levels. there's such a thing as not
having enough gain too, when one is supposed to be doing solos etc..
so knowing where it's at sounds like a good idea. easier for the soundman
too I should think.

a neat level meter. I can look at them all day on the internet or in
the store. never touched one before. a brand and model # would be
grand from any of you fellers IF anyone uses such a thing.

thanks much!

oh, and it sounds like there's all the compression and limiting I need
in cubase, if I figure out how to use it. ok, cheers!

As a player I like a compressor pedal before the distortion to give me sustain into the distortion. Compressing only after distortion sounds odd to me as the level is kept up but the distortion tone drops off. Further compression should be left to the sound person who has a better overall perspective of the sound in the room.

I wouldn't recommend a meter. You need to use your ears, not your eyes. Plus, you get into objective versus subjective levels. Any meter will have ballistic characteristics that may or may not be helpful in your situation. Just do the normal thing and listen to your bandmates.

If you are recording you might work on getting your backing tracks as solid as possible so you have a meaningful reference to play to. If your monitor mix has a lot of dynamics you will tend to play with more dynamics. This is true on stage as well as in the studio.