N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
I didn't catch it, which camp do these guys belong to?
noisewreck
New member
(Mock singing) I see rainbows in the skyyyyy...
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
This is what drives me nuts. Not you personally Doc, but just the general trend that constantly rears it's ugly head.
The whole point is THERE WAS NO DETOUR.
I'm not going to "ramble on" any more on the subject, because it sure doesn't seem to help get the point across. I'll just repeat:
THERE WAS NO DETOUR. Everything I explained had EVERYTHING to do with explaining audio normalization.
You guys need to get it through your heads that digital audio IS a TECHNICAL field with questions that require TECHNICAL answers, and that if you don't like that, then either stick to playing music and let someone else do the recording, or find a less technical hobby to get into.
And BTW, double scoop; Rocky Road and Coffee.
G.
R
RAMI
Guest
Heavenly Hash. It's a bitch to roll. Even harder to light.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Moot. The word is moot.
R
RAMI
Guest
Just hit the moot button.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
I have yet met anyone that doesn't agree with that.
Besides that though in light of the technical answers distinction, where have you ever seen a limiter called a normalizer? Technically, don't they perform different operations? Technically is a compressor a normalizer? How about EQ? What about a resistor? How about a fader, a computer, whatever? See where I'm going with this? We could call every sound treatment nomalization if you wanted to skew things a little further.
JIM Lad said:
"Normalize" when you see it in your DAW is basically bringing the highest peak up or down to a predetermined level.
I think he is 100% right and it's the most common interpretation of normalize in audio like it or not.
Of course RMS normalization is different but have you ever seen a normalize button the does RMS normalization? Not me.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
Ugh! Glen, I was looking for the right word to describe what the 'Shot was complaining about. Without going to the trouble of looking up the word, I was looking for one which equalled 'a shift in context to complete the definition of normalization'. Just one across disciplines. 'Detour' just sprang to mind.
Even if there was a 'detour' as you would define it, the point I was making is, there is no need to call someone out for it. Only if the information was incorrect or muddied by the shift - but it wasn't, it simply showed usage across other disciplines - and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, as I was trying to point out - quite the contrary. Conflating lateral thinking and thoroughness, in this instance, with 'showing off' - was plain wrong.
Dr. V
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Take another look at the screen print from SF's "Normalize" function. Not only does it offer either peak or RMS normalization, but when performing RMS normalizaton, it offers what it calls "Dynamic compression" as one option for handling what would otherwise be clipped peaks when trying to match RMS. That dynamic compression is nothing more than a limiter in different clothing. Also, check out almost any "volume balancing" plug or program, which usually needs to limit the peaks to do their brand of normalization.
NYM, there is no such thing as a "normalizer" with one single standard definition. This is the part that you seem to have trouble with. There are any given number of ways in which analog or digital audio data can be normalized, and you could could any one of them a "normalizer". But "Normalizer" in and of itself as a proper noun has no meaning even in audio.
I'll agree that JL's definition is "most often" the correct one for what a simpleton button does in many audio editors. But it is NOT *always* correct. That fact right there renders JL's definition as incomplete at best, and incorrect at worst.
Lets not forget there are a few questions that Doc V. asked in his OP, including the thread title "what does 'Normalize' mean", which the standard simplistic answer answers VERY incorrectly, and "What is Normal/what does Normal mean", which the "standard" answer you want to give does not answer at all.
I've been waiting for someone to ask those questions, I'm surprised it took this long
. The answer is no, none of those are normalizers (except maybe the computer), because they are not adjusting the data to any standardized values.Adding 6dB of something via EQ or applying 3:1 compression to something does not set a standard, because it's all relative to the original content, not to a defined result. Could you normalize with them? Yes, if you apply manual settings to each individual file so as some measure does wind up being equal between multiple files or tracks or data sets or whatever. But there the "noramlizer" is the manual physical procedure you apply to the gear, not the gear itself.
A "mormalizer", on the other hand, returns to you the exact same results (peaking or RMSing or whatever) at the same value regardless of the original content of the data it's modifying.
Look at it this way: a dumb fader - which is only a simple volume control - is not a normalizer in and of itself; it adjusts volume, but standardizes nothing. A peak normalizer, is also nothing but a simple volume control, but it is called a normalizer because the end result (in this case the maximum peak level) is the same regardless of the source material.
A standard compressor is not a normalizer in and of itself, because the output is dependent upon the input and nothing is set to a data standard. A brick wall limiter, OTOH, is a type of normalizer, because it sets an output standard; regardless of the sounds you feed it, nothing will ever come out of it more than a dB or so louder than it's threshold.
What the marketing bozos choose to call something by label is irrelevant. They also all call the polarity reverse buttons on mixers and DAW software "phase" buttons when in reality they are really just polarity inverters and not phase shifters.
G.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
Ah! Now... for someone like myself, who's just trying to undertand phase and what it actually means from written sources, this could be misleading... but... would I be wrong in assuming that a shift in phase is the result of a polarity reversal?
Dr. V
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I invite you to check out the little tutorial on "Phase and Polarity" I have on my website in my signature, where I go into this in some detail, but the short answer is that they appear to be the same thing only in those cases when there is no DC offset within the signal. But throw some DC offset in there, and the different results between a "phase inversion" and polarity inversion becomes rather apparent.
G.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
"Most often" is acceptable to me. Can we agree the definition of "normalize" in audio has been normalized?
Sure there are exceptions to every standard. Hell, I work in the exception factory but regardless, it is still valuable to have standards.
Language is limiting and there has been plenty written about normalizing in the audio realm to conclude it's generally accepted to mean what us 'guys' are saying. It's the generally accepted standard.
What the marketing bozos (I love that term but it's rather limiting) call things "is" relavent because they help build (or destroy) the language that we speak. They set the trends of what the common acceptable use of terms become. The consumers normalizes them.
Rasberry fudge tort frozen yogurt
mattr
Resident moody teenager
Imagine 'yaself an ideal sine wave.
A polarity inversion would be flipping the signal it on its zero-line (x-axis). What was a positive value becomes a negative value, and vice versa. The signal is turned upside down.
A phase shift involves the time-domain... a displacement of the signal in time. You can shift your original sine wave so it is completely out of phase with the original, which with the sine wave has the same effect as a polarity inversion, but its a time-shift that has caused it.
The polarity buttons on mixers simply reverse the + and - connections of the audio path within the mixer, achieving an inversion.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
No, we can't agree. I don't accept "almost" as a standard for teaching when "all the way" is just as teachable and does a far greater benefit to the recipient. The definition has NOT been normalized.
As far as all the stuff that "has been written", it's been almost all written by the uneducated in places free of editorial control, and has become the stuff of myth. I don't do myth. Truth is not a matter of public opinion, no matter what the Wikis will have you believe. The "standard" definition is WRONG, and no amount of majority unknowing public opinion will change that fact.
Don't settle, NYM. Or, if you wish to settle, don't get on the case of others who don't settle so easy.
Here again, time delay phase shift is the most common we encounter in audio, and your description of that aspect of it is good as far as it goes, matt, but it's erroneous to think that time delay is what is required to create or define phase change.mattr said:
Time is not required to perform phase shifts; phase change can also be instantaneous. Where y=sin(x) is the definition of a sine wave, y=sin(x+Θ), where Θ equals the amount of phase rotation in radians, defines true and instantaneous phase shift without having to incorporate the element of time.
The important difference between a 180° phase rotation and polarity inversion at that point is that polarity will "flip" the waveform around a zero volt DC centerline, whereas phase will flip around the rest value of the waveform, even if that rest value is not 0V DC. So if there is no DC offset in the waveform - i.e. it's rest value is 0DC - an instantaneous 180° phase change and a polarity inversion will indeed provide the same result. Introduce any amount of offset to the waveform, however, and the results will separate and be different. And "phase inverter" buttons are actually inverting polarity around 0VDC, not changing phase around the waveform itself.
G.
Last edited:
noisewreck
New member
Actually, this gives me an idea for testing the polarity/phase inverter buttons in DAWs. Based on what you said, if you have an audio part on a track with some positive DC offset and press that "p***whatever" button in the DAW, if it is a polarity reversal, then the DC offset will shift as well and be negative by the same amount. OTOH if it is a phase reversal, DC offset will stay positive.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
That's exactly right.
Thinking about it, I can't promise that all DAWs will invert polarity instead of phase, because the digital math is much easier to implement than the equivalent analog process, but even still, it's easier and more accurate (and slightly less CPU intensive) to multiply a value by -1 (polarity change) than it is to multiply a value by pi (180° phase change).
As this is most especially true on analog mixing boards, where inverting polarity is a no-brainer, but changing a phase value by a multiple of an irrational number in analog is not easy; this is why the "P button" on analog mixers is actually a polarity inversion and not a phase inversion. So if DAWs were to stick with the analog functionality, they would invert the polarity. But I guess there's no guarantee there.
G.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
They should normalize it
noisewreck
New member
They should normalize it
Bastards. How DARE they not standardize on the meaning of words.
Actually, not being a native English speaker, I have to say, English is a difficult language, mainly because the same word has 10,000 different meanings. At the same time, because of this, it's great when you want to play on words.
Gizzmo0815
New member
Sometimes I think this forum should just dispense with all of the different topic subforums and just have one thread in which we just have one continual ever evolving discussion...it's what always happens anyhow!
Seriously though...good thread (except for the fighting
), always love me a little science ;-)
Seriously though...good thread (except for the fighting
), always love me a little science ;-)
nialldoran
New member
yeah there where some idiots in this thread hating on glen, for no reason, before i read this i had a very pale generalisation of what normalizing did in reference to audio, but after reading the whole thread just now from start to finish, i have a far better understanding of what it does and the difference between a normalizer and limiter, compressor etc, and why they arent the same, all thanks to glens analogies(and others input too), and ive currently got the phase tutorial from his site open in another tab waiting for me to finish this post,
cheers everyone
cheers everyone