Dr. Varney
Pimp
When I record stuff, there's a button on the recording software called 'normalize'. When I press it, it makes my recording louder.
But what is normal? Normal to what?
Dr. V
But what is normal? Normal to what?
Dr. V
noisewreck
New member
Noramlizing usually increases the level of an audio file so that it's highest peaks are at 0dBFS, although there are some that will allow you to normalize to a different level.
This is NOT to be confused with limiting. Normalizing doesn't change the internal dynamics of a recording while limiting does.
This is NOT to be confused with limiting. Normalizing doesn't change the internal dynamics of a recording while limiting does.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
0db... Okay! Thanks.
Dr. V
Dr. V
noisewreck
New member
0dbFS = 0db Full Scale. This is the highest limit in digital audio. Anything over 0dbFS is clipping.
rayc
retroreprobate
& when it does that it increases everything including noise.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
"Normalize" is a generic scientific term meaning adjusting values to some defined standard. What that standard is depends entirely upon the person or people making that decision.
When you stand in line at a carnival ride and you see a sign saying you have to be between yea high and yonder tall in order to ride on that ride, that is normalizing the height of people allowed on that ride. When you have to be 21 to enter a bar, that is normalizing the age of customers to 21 or over. When a producer edits a song to be somewhere around 3 minutes in length or less because he knows that's what radio stations will play, that is normalizing the length of songs for radio play.
Most "normalize" buttons on most digital audio editors means what was said already, it's a simple uniform volume adjustment to the track by the number of dBs required to make the loudest peak on the track hit 0dBFS. This is really most properly called "0dBFS peak normalization", but for some lame reason, it has been shortened to the meaningless term "normalization", and 95% of the time means 0dBFS peak normalization.
The other 5% or so are also more advanced peak normalizers that will normalize to a user-selected level other than 0dBFS if wished. Then there are those that also can perform RMS normalization where the volume is adjusted not based upon the volume of the track's peaks, but rather on the track's average volume level.
Outside of a laboratory, peak normalization is fairly useless. RMS normalization can be a bit more useful, but still is really a mostly unnecessary tool.
G.
noisewreck
New member
The only time I've found normalization to be useful is when you're batch processing a bunch of audio files and you need their peak levels to be uniform.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Agreed. If one needs to peak normalize otherwise fairly consistent recordings such as voice transcriptions or something similar where other attributes such as RMS and crest factor are already pretty naturally normalized, batch peak normalization can be helpful. But when those other attributes are all over the map, peak normalization doesn't have a whole lot of use.
G.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
Thank you, that's useful to know.
"This is really most properly called "0dBFS peak normalization"
Now that makes more sense, but a bit long for a menu or button label.
The reason I've used it is where I've recorded from the mic. I don't like to push the gain up too high. I need the recordings to be fairly consistent with each other.
I've noticed it works in the opposite direction, too. It will reduce something if the peaks are very high.
Dr. V
"This is really most properly called "0dBFS peak normalization"
Now that makes more sense, but a bit long for a menu or button label.
The reason I've used it is where I've recorded from the mic. I don't like to push the gain up too high. I need the recordings to be fairly consistent with each other.
I've noticed it works in the opposite direction, too. It will reduce something if the peaks are very high.
Dr. V
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Last edited:
frederic
New member
Actually, the "you must be this tall to ride" analogy would translate more for limiting than normalizing as both are rejection based.
The "this tall" analogy for normalization would be to instantly "grow" all the people in line the same percentage so that the tallest member just doesn't quite hit his head on the sign walking into the ride.
The "this tall" analogy for normalization would be to instantly "grow" all the people in line the same percentage so that the tallest member just doesn't quite hit his head on the sign walking into the ride.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Kind of true; but limiting is really just another flavor of normalization. Instead of saying raise the gain until the highest peak hits 0dB, limiting says raise the gain by an input amount but limit the peaks to the limiter's setting.
G.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
You can't be serious. That's like saying steak is like another flavor of ice cream. There are no bones in ice cream.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
You can't be serious. That's like saying steak is like another flavor of ice cream. There are no bones in ice cream.
Yep.
Best keep it real specific.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm as serious as a heart attack.
Any process that adjusts data values to conform to some standard is a form of normalization. That is in fact what the term "normalize" means. Limiting says that the highest data values cannot exceed some set value, That is a form of normalization.
The problem is not in the definition of the term "normalize", it's in it's incorrectly specific usage within audio editing software.
So kindly put your birch stick away, because I'm not dropping trou.
G.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
That's not normalization, that's generalization.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
This BBS performs normalization whenever it changes all caps messages to standard upper/lower case, or whenever it converts forbidden words to all asterisks. It's just normalizing text instead of audio waves.
Any time you convert fractions to their lowest common denominator, you're normalizing the fractions.
Coming back to audio, converting multi-channel audio to mono is a form of normalization. In fact stereo mixdown itself is normalizing the signal to a standard stereophonic signal. Taking WAVs of varying sample rates or bit depths and converting them to a single standard type is a form of normalization as well.
I could go on.
G.
Any time you convert fractions to their lowest common denominator, you're normalizing the fractions.
Coming back to audio, converting multi-channel audio to mono is a form of normalization. In fact stereo mixdown itself is normalizing the signal to a standard stereophonic signal. Taking WAVs of varying sample rates or bit depths and converting them to a single standard type is a form of normalization as well.
I could go on.
G.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
I'll bet you could go on but it'll still be wrong. Standardizing a sentence and censoring is not normalizing. I am not normalizing when I'm limiting. Converting sample rates and bit depths is not normalizing, it's standardizing. Normalizing is not bringing things into standard by any stretch of the imagination.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
Well so I'm wrong
but you are stretching it's meaning when used in audio and I think that's in error too.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
It's not that I'm stretching the meaning, it's that the marketing whizzos at the software companies have crushed and straightjacketed the real meaning into one little tiny specific example of what the term and the process really means.Well so I'm wrong
I have the advantage (or maybe you might call it a disadvantage, I guess that's more perspective than anything) of having become familiar with the concept of "normalization" in a couple of different fields long before I even first saw the term used in audio software back in the days of Sound Forge v2 (i think). Back then the only time I ever heard of "normalization" in audio has to do with things like radio transmitter signal normaization, which indeed had much to do with limiting the signal to conform to FCC rules, while at the same time boosting average modulation levels as much as possible without breaking those rules (an early front in the long-existing volume wars). It bore a superficial resemblance to what we now know today as peak normalization, but it also included elements of what we would today call limiting and RMS normalization as well.
So right away, when I saw that "normalize" button in that first copy of SF, and what it did, I immediately realized, "well, that's different than the 'typical' use of the term 'normalize' I'm used to thinking of in audio". And I saw that it was only one specific type of normalization of many that I was already familiar with - and that's not even including the usages of the term that I had already learned in my nascent IT career, not to mention my high school science, math and biology classes.
Why not just accept the current use of "normalize" in audio as meaning digital peak normalization, and never mind the extraneous stuff I'm dredging up? First, because as I explained in an earlier post, that's only how it's currently used maybe about 95% of the time. It's NOT a universal definition, even in digital audio. There are an increasing number of RMS normalizers, volume balancers, etc. that do other stuff to normalize the signal than just peak normalization, and they properly *call* them normalizers as well. We teach here that "normalize" only means an overall volume gain by x dB until the loudest peak is 0dBFS, and we're not teaching them anything about the other - far more useful - types of normalizers out there.
Second, Understanding the general concept of "normalization" and not the the one specific button, can lead to a whole new level of comprehension and understanding of how to manipulate our music to better advantage.
It would be a lot easier to just say that "normalize" means boost the peak to 0dBFS, but it would be incomplete at best, and just plain wrong at worst.
And when have you ever known me to just take the easier route?
G.