What Does 'Normalize' Mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Varney
  • Start date Start date
Guitarshot said:
The last time i checked this is a forum about audio and audio related subjects. I missed the part where anyone cared what "normalize" means outside of the audio realm. The question was just what does normalize mean in the software. No one minds reading long posts as long as the person posting doesnt go off on some rant, about what a word means in science, history, math, and your IT career. We shall find other forums for that if the urge arises.
Click to expand...

Well, I found Glen's post interesting and enlightening, not least because he sets out to define 'normalization' outside of it's audio usage, showing that it also has many uses within the audio realm, by virtue of it's wider meaning... Whereas... I didn't find your one and only contribution to the subject in the least bit useful.

I also think it's unwise to assume no one cares what any given term means, outside of the audio realm, just because we happen to be, for the moment, talking in an audio forum.

Regards

Dr. V
 
Last edited:
Hey Glen, I am interested in finding out how that Normalize to RMS function works in SF. Does it apply both a downward AND an upward compression at the same time? (well, effectively compressing the signal and adding a complementary make-up gain?). It's a pretty intriguing feature.
 
noisewreck said:
Hey Glen, I am interested in finding out how that Normalize to RMS function works in SF. Does it apply both a downward AND an upward compression at the same time? (well, effectively compressing the signal and adding a complementary make-up gain?). It's a pretty intriguing feature.
Click to expand...
I don't really know the mechanism it uses to do it. I know there are several ways it could be done, but I have a feeling that one is probably pretty simplistic.

The fact that it has something asking what to do "if clipping occurs" makes me think it's still just a simple volume gain; i.e. it just looks at the current RMS (you can check that before normalizing with the "Scan Levels" button) and adjusts overall gain by the number of dB between that and the requested RMS. If it has to clip some peaks to get it there, then it handles that clipping according to your setting (in this case, by compressing the peaks.) But that's only a guess on my part.

G.
 
Guitarshot said:
The last time i checked this is a forum about audio and audio related subjects. I missed the part where anyone cared what "normalize" means outside of the audio realm. The question was just what does normalize mean in the software. No one minds reading long posts as long as the person posting doesnt go off on some rant, about what a word means in science, history, math, and your IT career. We shall find other forums for that if the urge arises.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I agree with you.

It's all to common around here to take a two minute thought and turn it into a 20 minute vocabulary lesson. It seems to keep the subjects confusing and posters in the lime lite.

You also have to get used to getting called on the carpet if you don't agree with some of the folks here as I'm sure I will be for posting this but it's just another form of oppression.:( Don't let it discourage you from voicing your opinion because it's just as valuable as anyone elses.
 
RAMI said:
I think you need a few more posts before you come in here with your dick hanging out trying to tell someone who's been here way longer than you how to do things here.
Click to expand...

A) Rami you're a fool.

B) well Glen as interesting as your posts are in most cases, im just saying literature was not the issue here. I understand "normalization" has different meanings in the audio realm, but lets keep it to the audio realm. Not math and science and some other what not. Its obvious you're are very educated there's just no need to argue the meaning of a word outside of the question. Wasn't trying to be a dick, because most times your posts are very informative. Its just frustrating when people argue about issues that have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. Its like being in a conversation with a really smart person who just goes on and on just to hear themselves talk and show to everyone else how much they know about everything.
 
Guitarshot said:
A) Rami you're a fool.

B) well Glen as interesting as your posts are in most cases, im just saying literature was not the issue here. I understand "normalization" has different meanings in the audio realm, but lets keep it to the audio realm. Not math and science and some other what not. Its obvious you're are very educated there's just no need to argue the meaning of a word outside of the question. Wasn't trying to be a dick, because most times your posts are very informative. Its just frustrating when people argue about issues that have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. Its like being in a conversation with a really smart person who just goes on and on just to hear themselves talk and show to everyone else how much they know about everything.
Click to expand...

TL/DR

You lost :D

Enjoy. You might as well leave, unless you feel up to the task of trying to salvage a reputation :)
 
philbagg said:
TL/DR

You lost :D

Enjoy. You might as well leave, unless you feel up to the task of trying to salvage a reputation :)
Click to expand...

:laughings: im sure ill stay up all night wondering about my reputation on homerecordings.com :laughings: it means so much to me what a bunch of pretengineers and their mentor think.
 
Dr. Varney said:
Well, I found Glen's post interesting and enlightening, not least because he sets out to define 'normalization' outside of it's audio usage, showing that it also has many uses within the audio realm, by virtue of it's wider meaning... Whereas... I didn't find your one and only contribution to the subject in the least bit useful.

I also think it's unwise to assume no one cares what any given term means, outside of the audio realm, just because we happen to be, for the moment, talking in an audio forum.

Regards

Dr. V
Click to expand...

+1^
I like the insight and learn a lot from the discussions on these boards. I prefer to hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about and can back it up with detailed explanations.

It's really a simple enough concept that if you don't like what you're reading,DON'T READ IT. Just simply click that little red box with an 'x' in it and continue on.

Blasting on someone who's contributing to a post positively is ridiculous. You choose to take it off topic just to throw stones.
 
well to set things straight i was in no way bashing glen. he always has very good insights that help. he was simply arguing with people the meaning of a word that meant nothing to the subject (being outside of audio). however the people who in return insulted me is a different story, i absolutely meant to put them down. the fact of the matter is what i was saying was in no way meant to put down glen or say his explanation of normalizing in software was wrong. he was absolutely right, but somehow everyone missed the point of what i was saying and the very simple logic behind it. Glen seems like an educated man and doesnt need lads handing out insults in his defense.

and length of posts is not the issue i never said it was besides when its not relative. some of do read all replies in order to follow the conversation that is happening within the post. its such a mute point now it doesnt matter. this has gotten out of hand and beyond the point of ridiculous and im washing my hands of it.
 
Talk about being a fucking wind bag. And you accuse someone else of being too verbose??? Ignorance + arrogance always makes someone look like a complete blow-hard. Congratulations. :D
 
Last edited:
Guitarshot said:
well to set things straight i was in no way bashing glen. he always has very good insights that help. he was simply arguing with people the meaning of a word that meant nothing to the subject
Click to expand...
But that's just it GS; your assumption that anything I talked about has nothing to do with the OP questions or with audio is just plain incorrect. In fact, it's just the opposite; the meaning of "normalize" in audio is exactly the same as it is in every other discipline, which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

You know, when I do write long answers (which is not always), it's not because I like long answers, it's because a long answer is what is required to put the answer straight, especially when you get a bunch of Net2.0 bozos who have no idea what they're talking about parroting one-sentence opinions or answers that are just not correct.

Take this very subject for example. You know, I have looked at three different audio-specific editors that I have at my disposal; Sound Forge, Adobe Audition and Steinberg Nuendo. And you could add Cubase to that list too, because Cubase and Nuendo use the same core editors. Not one of them has a normalize function that limits itself to the narrow, simplistic definition everybody wants to use here for "normalize". The reality just does not match the myth that you want me to simplify things down to.

You want it easy or do you want it real? I give it real.

G.
 
Discussions like these always separate people into two camps very quickly - recording hobbyists and recording engineers.

By all means, push the normalize button and enjoy the outcome. But consider this - music is just physics and in turn, mathematics - the more you know about how it all works, the better opportunity you have to make a damn good recording.

That's not an attack on anyone, just some advice. People with knowledge, sharing that knowledge, is a good thing and makes places like this fun and useful.

And all of you are lucky in having the internet and access to things like this. Back in the day, we didn't, and our knowledge was gained the old fashioned, time consuming way - experimentation, reading trade magazines, but mostly learning the craft from a master (or at least someone with more knowledge than ourselves).

Here, you can ask a specific question and 10,000 people with a wide span of experience can answer. Guys, like Glenn. Rick. Phil. Rami. Four of about a couple of hundred people willing to share.

Why call them windbags? They're trying to help you.
 
So what's everyone's favourite ice cream?

It might be outside the subject of audio but then, it's relevant to a hot day and on a hot day, you need to normalise your body temperature... and since I'm recording some vocals on this hot day, I think the feeling of icecream on the back of my throat will be beneficial to the audio.

Dr. V
 
Guitarshot said:
A) Rami you're a fool.
Its just frustrating when people argue about issues that have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. Its like being in a conversation with a really smart person who just goes on and on just to hear themselves talk and show to everyone else how much they know about everything.
Click to expand...

I think you're just gonna have to face the fact some people are more methodical and thorough than others when addressing technical questions. Sure, it may be irritating to you but when you weigh the advantages of inducing negative feedback with those of gating what you don't need and commenting favourably on the parts you think are salient, you'll find the result compromises less the quality of the thread than half a page of people calling each other windbags, fools and whatever else tends to spring to mind in these situations. To me, that's just noise.

I mean, if anyone's rowed us further out from the shores of the sacred audio island, then it's you; then a windbag like me takes it even further - having to tell you that actually, as the OP, I did get something from Glen's detour, by him putting the word into different contexts. Because of the way my mind works, I find Glen to be an excellent teacher (even if he tends to ramble).

And why do I feel I have to tell you this? It's not like I care what you think. Actually, it's more to highlight the theory, many of us think sequencially and some think laterally. For the sake of the benefits of each, there is one form of normalisation I can do without.

Anyway, fuck all that now - and tell me what's your favouite flavour of ice cream. It's important because it's the only way I can prove to my psychiatrist that you people exist.

Dr. V
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top