Normalising......Good or bad?

[jasedee]

Back in the day.....when I had just started out, I would automatically normalise any audio I was working with. Someone came along and told me that it was probably not a good idea (he had a very good, technical explanation, which I dont recall unfortunately).......All was good, until a friend of mine came over to do some audio editing and started reaching for the normalise function.

I immediately told him it wasn't good to normalise, and when he asked why, I couldn't explain myself. So I was just hoping someone out there could enlighten me as to the benefits of normalisation, and when/if it is necessary...

Thanks!

Jase

[Tomer=Trance]

normalize destroyes all the dynamics of an audio.
if you want to do that normalize if you dont just leave it without.
i usualy normalize only audio loops which i want to squash so i normalize
just to get everything close to 0 and then compress the hell out of it.
but thats the only case i use normalizing.
the rest is just slight compression and haveyer when is needed.

[Hollowcell]

I only will normalize on the mastering stage. I don't think normalizing takes away the dynamics of audio. It only will boost the highest level of the file to 0db. Compressing/limiting on the other hand does take away dynamics.

From what I have read, many mastering engineers will normalize before compression/limiting and eq. Whether all of them do this, I wouldn't have a clue.

Trying to limit a file that is -3db at the mastering stage so it renders at 0db (0db to match pro CD productions version of 0db) would be quite hard to do me thinks - not to mention killing dynamics completely.

Juho?

[jasedee]

Thanks for the reply's,

I guess there are a few people out there a little unsure of what normalising actually does....... Im glad it is not just me! Im going to do a search and find out a little more...

Cheers,

Jase

[Smag]

Hang on, I thought you normalised your tracks together before you burnt it onto CD to get them all to the same level. I haven't used it yet but this is what I thought it was for.

[Drammy]

Most professional Mastering Houses wil NEVER normalise - it is considered as the biggest taboo in mastering.

It does indeed mess with the dynamics of the track.

There is a good few articles that can be found on this subject at http://recording.org/modules.php?name=Forums.

Personally, I never normalise. I used to but I just make sure I get my recording levels correct or use compressors where you at least have control over the dynamics.

[Juho L]

As Martynreid mentioned normalising should be avoided as long as possible because it changes the dynamics and causes aliasing and other stuff like that. You avoid normalising best by keeping recording levels suitable all the time. If you have to normalise all the time you should punch yourself and add some gain to your inputs.

If you mix well you don't need to normalise in any stage. Just do multiband and brickwall compression to the final mix and off you go.

[Hollowcell]

Shit, well you learn something new everyday!

I will get the mix as close to zero db during recording and mixing, but I have always used normalizing at the mastering stage - I have always thought it was the less destructive option. Maybe the next master I'll tread carefully around it.

Hey Jasedee, you are studying this at school, what do they say about it there?

Also, why is there a normailze function at all then? If it is such a bad thing to do, why do all the latest packages have it as an option?

[jasedee]

Unfortunately at school, we havent covered the software (or "home studio") side of audio engineering. We have mainly used Digital multi-tracks...........and big ol' analogue desks.

Next semester we go into the pro-tools room, so maybe we will cover it then...... but as I suspected, it looks like we should try not to reach for the "normalise" button.

Thanks everyone for the info!

Jase

[Hollowcell]

This has really opened a can of worms for me though.

If anyone has some info/technical details of why we shouldn't be reaching for that button, I'd love to hear/read them. I'd really like to read how it does actually change the dynamics of audio.

That site that you placed a link Martyn seems very interesting, but a direct link to a thread there wouldn't go a stray. Although I have found some other interesting reads there.

By the way Martyn, you do seem to know your stuff on the technical side of things, how about linking us to a few of your tracks. I'd love to take a listen.

[Drammy]

Hollowcell,

I'd love for you to listen to some of my tracks. Things is I am the world worst sufferer of the not quite ready yet syndrome!

I have spend many years (20) producing music on computers - from the early days of the Atari ST. However I have never finished tracks I must have about 30 tracks on my PC at the moment, most are ideas that have never been taken further. A lot have vocals that I have no rights to and therefore cannot release and a lot have just started to bore me.

I like to think of it as perfecting the process but in truth I am scared of finishing a track - it is an incredibly difficult habit to get out of! I am never happy with what I produce.

I can certainly post snippets of tracks but whole tracks - ooo er.

Leave it with me and I'll post some of my music onto a website

[Juho L]

I will get the mix as close to zero db during recording and mixing, but I have always used normalizing at the mastering stage - I have always thought it was the less destructive option.

Less destructive option than what? Than doing absolutely nothing? It doesn't make sense. Less is more. The less EQ, compression, etc you have to do for a satisfying mix the better mix you get.

Maybe the next master I'll tread carefully around it.

Just compress it and that's it.

Also, why is there a normailze function at all then? If it is such a bad thing to do, why do all the latest packages have it as an option?

Normalizing is the last resort. For example let's assume that you want to use a vocal sample in your track but the sample is quite silent. In this kind of cases it's a good thing to have a normalizing option. Normalizing is an useful tool in some cases (and even desireable in some), but it doesn't mean that you should normalize every material you get your hands on.

If anyone has some info/technical details of why we shouldn't be reaching for that button, I'd love to hear/read them. I'd really like to read how it does actually change the dynamics of audio.

I couldn't find any good links, but I think one reason is that the dynamic range division isn't linear - It's logarithmic. Other reason is simply that the noisefloor is also increased in normalizing process. So in other words you get aliasing with increased noise floor.

[Panopticon]

Compression is going to change dynamics a lot more than normalizing. (Well, obviously, because that's what compression is intended to do). I'm not convinced there is actually a change in dynamics when you normalize, but there's definitely some aliasing, and the worst problem, as Juho pointed out, is the increased noise floor.

But I don't think the noise floor is raised any more than it is when you use makeup gain on a compressor, so the only advantage I'd see to compressing over normalizing is if there are actually dynamics that need to be subdued.

[Hollowcell]

Less destructive option than what? Than doing absolutely nothing? It doesn't make sense. Less is more. The less EQ, compression, etc you have to do for a satisfying mix the better mix you get.


Than Compresion my dear friend.

I agree with the less is more theme and that's exactly the reason I normalize. I find boosting the gain on the limiter/compressor way more destructive/noisy than boosting the level by normailzing first.

I couldn't find any good links, but I think one reason is that the dynamic range division isn't linear - It's logarithmic. Other reason is simply that the noisefloor is also increased in normalizing process. So in other words you get aliasing with increased noise floor.

I agree with Panopticon on this one. I don't find the noisefloor raised much at all - specially when compairing it to the gain on a compressor.

I'm not sure what you mean by "isn't linear - It's logarithmic" though?

so the only advantage I'd see to compressing over normalizing is if there are actually dynamics that need to be subdued.

This is one of the reasons I tend not to compress overly at the mastering stage. I don't want to crush the dynamics completely. I'm not doing compression for TV , so why flatten out the track that much. I find the standard volume of pro production CDs has increased alot over the past 5 years and this is because they are compressing/limiting way too much in my opinion. I still want my crash or lead in rolls to have a little more volume than the rest of the track - am I wrong in wanting this.

I really want to read about this is more detail. Any links from anyone would help. Maybe Jasedee, could you ask some people at your school for us?

Martyn, maybe you should open a few tracks up for colaboration. Always a good way to finish some tracks that you get stuck on

[jasedee]

I return to school on monday, and will enquire about this normalise issue.

(my teacher this year is the founder of an australian audio magazine, called "Audio technology", and he knows a shit load about everything! so he is bound to give me a very good explanation)

Cheers,

Jase

[saba]

(my teacher this year is the founder of an australian audio magazine, called "Audio technology", and he knows a shit load about everything! so he is bound to give me a very good explanation)

Wow. I buy and read that.
________
Medical marijuana dispensaries (http://dispensaries.org/)

[jasedee]

Yeah...me too. Its a great mag.

Cheers,

Jase

[tranzash]

his name is Greg Simmons. he writes the "First Word" article

Cheers,

Jase
Greg simmons. heard that name before.

[Hollowcell]

Great!

I'm really looking forward to getting some pro-feedback about this. I am finding it hard to find good info on the net.

[jasedee]

Hi,

Well, I asked my lecturer about it, but didn't really get the response I was looking for.

The general vibe I got was that there is indeed a time and a place for normalising, but in most circumstances people use it as a tool to try and fix a mistake of recording at too low a level. In digital audio, the clearest and most precise audio is that nearest to 0dBFS, where our full 24bits are utilized. anything below that is apparently "out of focus", and normalising is an attempt to push our audio up to where all of our Bits are working for us. Michael Paul Stavrou's book, "mixing with your mind" goes into this theory in great detail, and outlines the difference between digital and analogue recording (with cool little diagrams too).

I will endevour to uncover the awful truth about normalising.....Maybe we need to speak to a mastering engineer?

Cheers,

jase

[Hollowcell]

Thanks for asking Jasesdee.

I was eagerly waiting for your reply to this, but still the quest continues.

I definately agree with your lecturer in regards to how people use normalizing. People seem to use it to boost poor recording alot. I never seem to use it to boost more than 1db on the final mix and sometimes I do get the final mix sitting at 0db - rare though. Did he mention when to use it then?

Also what he said about people wanting their CDs to have the highest volume possible - this is along the lines of what I was talking about earlier in the thread.

Blaming companies for releasing technolgy that gives more options to the average consumer is pretty fucked up though. Maybe he lost his job as an engineer or something. Maybe a few years back people with no knowledge would hear the before and afters and be overwhelmed with what the engineer had achived with their music, but now people can get closer than before to a polished sound.

That forum that Martyn linked us too before had a thread where the engineers were talking about what they should do if a home recording comes in and they don't have to do anything to it - I bet that never happened 5 years ago.

Anyway, hopefully someone will come along with a technical explanation.

[jasedee]

Yeah.....I was a bit dissapointed with his explanation too. he is very opinionated and passionate about audio, and I guess a bit old fashioned and nostaligic too, and maybe not wanting to accept technology and change.....

We go into the protools room next week, and I will ask one of the studio assistants about it. Maybe they will have a better answer for me, as they are a bit younger and more into the DAW based recording.

Cheers,

Jase

[hatembr]

well this guy reminds me of my uncle :) old fashioned and sticking to old analog stuff and the old methods.... anyway...

i used to normalise everything i record and used to have a lot of clipping problems even with the volumes lowered .... few weeks ago i decided to try mixing without normalising my audio and I was surprised.
I just record as clean as possible a signal that is not clipping (i use the LFO leds on the virus to see if it or not clipping before reaching the mixer), then compress (not always!).... to say the truth, the result is much better, it clips a lot less than usual and the sound isn't saturated. It sounds clearer.
I think clipping problems were due to normalising...... maybe because it boosts noises or something..... it is good to learn things by practising but it would be nice to have a technical explanation too....

[k-rite]

I think anything that compresses, limits, or normalizes, will hinder the dynamics of a sound. However, with careful and knowledgable use of these tools a desired sound or improved can be achieved, but original dynamics will be effected. Original dynamics are just that original, once passed through a compression tool then they are no longer original. Just my two cents...

[jasedee]

Also, the accuracy and quality of some software normalizing is a bit suspect.....which may have been the cause of clipping??

Jase

[hatembr]

Also, the accuracy and quality of some software normalizing is a bit suspect.....which may have been the cause of clipping??


i use Cubase SX2 to record and normalize. It would be a problem if such a famous soft isn't careful when dealing with audio and resulting in suspect and non occurate normalized results.

actually i think the problem is a wrong use of the normalizing function. In my case, i used to apply it to everything, and now i can see clearly the difference.

[jasedee]

i use Cubase SX2 to record and normalize. It would be a problem if such a famous soft isn't careful when dealing with audio and resulting in suspect and non occurate normalized results.

actually i think the problem is a wrong use of the normalizing function. In my case, i used to apply it to everything, and now i can see clearly the difference.


I use SX too......and Im sure that they have the normalising thing pretty much covered.....but for example, some CD burning software have a normalise function, that is sometimes automatically engaged to make all songs on the CD the same volume, and these are renowned for their inaccuracies. Steinberg do a great job!

And I definately agree with your opinion that people are mis-using and abusing this function....

Cheers,

Jase

[Hollowcell]

Using normalize on everything recorded is taking it a bit far. I actually never use it on individual sounds, but on the whole mix (depending).

As far as software goes. I haven't actually normalized with in cubase at all. As I'm doing it on the master track, wavelab does the work. Although after reading this thread I'm gunna try many different things with the normalizing function.

Over compression kills sound, that's for sure. But I can't hear much difference (if any) in the dynamics when I normalize. Only normalizing to raise the level very slighlty though (1db or 2 db at the most.).

Of course there would be some quality loss (as there is any time you apply soft effects/processing), but recording in 24/96 helps in this arena.

I'd really love your lecturer to give a pro-explanation Jase.

[Gopal]

Would just like to share my knowledge of normalising at this stage.

In my experience, normalising is where you set a desirable db and normalising raises the troughs in the recording to this level and compresses the peaks to this level at the same time, making the whole project play at pretty much the same level right through, which naturally destroys basically ALL dynamics in the recording. Also if you look at the waveforms after normalising you will find alot of peaks have been drastically cut and the waveform will fill the entire headroom and have a very digital and unnatural appearance to it.

I have mainly used normalising on DJ mixes that I have recorded as the DJ may have pushed the levels up on a new track he was mixing in or as is often the case the levels have gradually crept up throughout the recording.

[jasedee]

OooOhhh....This is a sore point for Hollowcell, one that could stir up some deep seeded emotional trauma! He still has trouble sleeping from the lack of closure on this thread.....I dont know if we should go bringing up the past :)

Just for the record, I think I will give my final opinion on Normalizing.

I think that it is a good thing, when used in the right situations, and that if used incorrectly or too much, it can be a VERY bad thing. Im pretty sure what it does is raise the entire level without causing clipping, so it would be like a fader with peak limiter??/.

Is that a good definition?

Normalizing - "A fader with a peak limiter"

Do we dare re-open old wounds?

[Hollowcell]

Do we dare re-open old wounds?

Yeh, why not. I basicly use it exactly the way you have stated there Jase.

I'm over this thread now though. My shrink has informed me to say away from the normalize function. :D

[remix808]

I was really bewildered by the amount of uneducated postings here, just stabbing in the dark about Normalising audio.

I thought it was a well known fact, but many here have proved me wrong by saying things like 'it changes the dynmics'.

First lets get one thing straight. IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE DYNMICS IN THE SAME WAY COMPRESSION DOES, IT INCREASES THE DYNMICS OF THE WHOLE FILE SELECTED AND DOES NOT SQUASH THEM. If there is floor nosie in the file then it will also be increased. just think of it as turning the fader up in an audio file - it increases everything.
Also it does not limit the audio as stated above, it takes the highest peak of the selected file and increases the whole file until that highest peak reaches the desired level (0dB if thats what you choose).

This can be cleary seen if you render a track with only hi-hats and then add a big kick drum so the wave form looks like this - http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~xlx/courses/audio/project/waveform/costa-wav.png
If you then normalised it, the hi hats would only increase the same amount the kick drum increases.

A good use for normalising is if when you push your (old analogue) faders up and get lots of hiss from the mixer (with the gain up to) then normalise to give you more room to play on the mixer so you don't get hiss noises etc on your track for the mixer.
Always remembering signal to noise ratio.


Sorry for shouting i really had to get that out of my system. In fact the only reason i joined this forum was because i was so shocked at what people where saying Normalising is that i had to reply just to put them right,... so there we go.

"Normalizing, as far as Sound Forge or other digital audio editors are concerned, simply means to adjust the peak volume of a selection to a known value. Generally the recommended maximum is -0.5 dB" (http://www.homerecording.com/normalizing.html)

Best pro info about it online is: http://artistpro.com/index.php?module=PnCourses&func=getPage&course_id=20&page_id=92
Hope this helps.

I'm not a teacher just a student so sorry if i could of explained it better.
I have been studying music technology for 5 years now and have aquired alot of knowledge and equipment.
Check out the books i've read at me website.
www.sessionstudios.co.uk
:arrow:

[jasedee]

Ok then.....

After reading through all of the old posts again, I cant really see any reason for you to be so upset. This thread was about dispelling some myths about normalizing, and hearing peoples opinons about what they thought it does.....

Relax buddy, you'll live longer :)

P.S I think my words were "Normalizing is LIKE a fader with a peak limiter." Is that not correct? It pushes the audio up to whatever point you decide and doesnt let it past this point (limits)?????

Whatever.......Im just looking for a fight ;) hehehe

I'll go now

[grs]

The main reason you should not normalise is quantisation and rounding errors.
If you recorded say 16 tracks of audio and normalised them all, then went about mixing them together in a digital mixing app using faders to get a mix, What you have done is level quantised the bits in each audio file twice!

Moving a fader in a digital mixer is just like normalising but your aim is not to turn it all the way up to zero.

More on quantisation.. (this explanation will be using a hypothetical 16bit digital mixer)
say you have recorded a cute sine wave at -12db off hitting zero. You did this in a 16bit file, for each -6db away from zero you record your using one less bit.
a 1bit file would contain 2 states, silent and loud as hell.
a 2bit file would contain 4 levels (2x2), silent, soft, medium loud and loud as hell.
a 4bit file would contain 16 levels (2x2x2x2),, and it goes on like that
...
...
...
a 14bit file would contain 16384 levels
and a 16 bit file would contain 65536 levels

now thats a 1 to 4 ratio, Your volume steps in your 14bit file are mapped out to fit into the space of 4 steps for every one step. Thats great if your little sine wave is exaclty 16384 levels loud, if its say 16001 levels loud (still a 14bit number and still -12db) there will be not exactly a 1 to 4 ratio, rather 1 to 4.0957440159990000624960939941254 ratio.
That's when rounding errors occur because the final level has to be a whole number without the .0957440159990000624960939941254, it will round it up or down, or what ever the software designer has in mind.

Then you go and turn your track down (say -12db from clip) in your mixing application so that all the tracks don't overload the stereo mix. Turning down a track is like backwards normalising, it doesn't undo the rounding errors, it just adds more. Try and map 65536 numbers of loud to 16001 numbers of soft and your kind of missing some loud loud steps by around 4 to 1. Not exacly 4 to 1 either, something nasty like with heaps of numbers after the decimal point.

So you can see that you should never normalise if your goal is to minimise rounding errors and therefore preserve as much of the loudness detail.

Of course a 32bit mixer sounds better than a 16bit one, and many people argue that you don't hear all those errors, but there will be a theoritical limit to how many times you can adjust the gain of a 32bit digital file before you will hear all those errors. My current philosophy is to capture/record/produce all sounds at the highest level and bit depth and minimise gain changes to one or two plugins and mix in the analog world.

You can quote me on any of that, I learn't most of it from 'Audio Technology' anyway. Great Ausie mag!

[Panopticon]

Well, normalizing is not like a peak limiter. A peak limiter sets a predefined limit and squashes anything that exceeds that limit. Normalizing, on the other hand, takes the highest level and DEFINES that as the peak limit. So, with a peak limiter, YOU decide what the highest level is (and it's adjustable). With normalization, the process finds the highest peak, sets it to "all bits on", and adjusts the entire level accordingly.

With a peak limiter, you could have plenty of material that was not altered in the least by the limiter; with normalization, everything is altered by the same amount.

Now, I don't think I've said anything that hasn't already been made clear; just kind of recapping. However, there are some aspects of gain staging that I'm not very well versed in, but I know they could play a part in this discussion.

I think the ultimate conclusion to draw is: improve your recording methods so that normalization is not needed; thereby keeping your noise floor at as low a level as possible.

(I'm drunk right now, by the way, so feel free to disregard any/all parts of this post that are incoherent, wrong, or simply rub you the wrong way)

((I really like making drunken posts, as well. In the future, I will try to increase my ratio of drunken:sober posts))


Lick my love pump....

[Hollowcell]

In fact the only reason i joined this forum was because i was so shocked at what people where saying Normalising is that i had to reply just to put them right,... so there we go.

I admire your passion when it comes to the Normalising function. :wink:

[jasedee]

I learn't most of it from 'Audio Technology' anyway. Great Ausie mag!
Here here!


I was really bewildered by the amount of uneducated postings here, just stabbing in the dark about Normalising audio.
I hope the preceeding posts were up to your standards of education?

Lick my love pump....
Ummm.......No thanks! :) hehehehe....

[tranzash]

What happened to this thread?


So guys, should we normalize tracks? or is it the only remedy to increase the overall volume of the audio you record out of your cell phone? :lol:

[remix808]

:D "I think the ultimate conclusion to draw is: improve your recording methods so that normalization is not needed; thereby keeping your noise floor at as low a level as possible." thats a quote from 'Lick my love pump....' and i must agree, most of the time you should not have to normalise.... just use it when you mess up and don't get the signal you require.

and what that bloke said about all the bit crunching etc... "1 to 4 ratio, rather 1 to 4.0957440159990000624960939941254 ratio." hummmm, i'd hate to hear what he had to said about digital compression.... interesting though.

L8r,... Dave


www.sessionstudios.co.uk

[tranzash]

:lol: Remix808, Welcome to the forum.

[waketek]

This is the explanation from the Masterlink Manual about the fuction on the Masterlink DSP- Normalization

DSP4:NORMALIZER
A Normalizer's function is to scan a Track for the highest peak value, determine the ratio between that
peak value and full-scale, and multiply the Track by that ratio so that the highest peak value of the
Track is equal to full-scale.
The major improvement in this normalizer over others is that the gain multiplication is performed in
real time, instead of rendering the normalized file back to disk. This allows re-normalizing if changes to
the Track Gain, Compression, EQ, Limiting and Track Fade blocks occur after the first pass of
normalization.
The normalizer does not have any parameters per se, other than the current gain multiplier (which is
not user set, but is determined from the Track).

[Timo]

[To Normalise or Not To Normalise (http://sound-on-sound2.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=215094572&f=884099644&m=3303048847&p=1)]

One of the best threads in the old SOS forums.

[blay]

:lol:

i had a great time reading through this thread...

:wink:

cheers

blay

[Wandering Kid]

remix808 is right.

normalising doesnt change the dynamic of the audio at all. it stays exactly the same. what normalising does is scale the entire waveform up so that the peak level of the track hits the ceiling or a ceiling that you predefine (say, normalise to -0.3 dB).

and yes this does mean the noisefloor of the recording is scaled up accordingly. which is why its mostly undesirable to do this.

also. if you have a walloping great big peak in your recording, normalizing will retain that massive peak exactly but scale the entire waveform up so that the peak goes to 0 dB and no further. therefore if the rest of your recording was going at -10 dB roughly and you had a great big spike that shot up to -1dB. normalising it would hardly increase the level of the track at all. if you wanted to get rid of that peak you would have to either notch EQ it out or compress the waveform so it reduces the dynamic range of the audio. the additional benefit of doing this of course is that you can make the overall waveform louder without scaling up the noisefloor too.

i noticed this most when i foolishly had my analog input boost set to 127 on my virus. to those who have never done this it boosts the signal the virus sends to your soundcard and it raises the noisefloor something insane. when i was doing this, the LFO emitted a high pitched peircing sound as it oscillated and the noisefloor was pretty constant in the mid and upper ranges at around -30 dB. thats unbelievably high on its own. anyway i remember writing some dirty hoovers at that point which made it into a tune i have since abandoned - witch engine. that hoover was normalised and it made the low level noise much more prominant. if you listen carefully you can actually hear it on the recording - even with all the other stuff going off.

if i strip the rest of the song away and just play that wav recording it is ear peircingly evident. anyway, whilst i was screwing around with it, i noticed normalising the entire waveform made the ambient noise in the recording even louder. gah.

[Timo]

Don't forget rounding errors.

also. if you have a walloping great big peak in your recording, normalizing will retain that massive peak exactly but scale the entire waveform up so that the peak goes to 0 dB and no further. therefore if the rest of your recording was going at -10 dB roughly and you had a great big spike that shot up to -1dB. normalising it would hardly increase the level of the track at all. if you wanted to get rid of that peak you would have to either notch EQ it out or compress the waveform so it reduces the dynamic range of the audio.

For troublesome spikes, I just import the audio into a wave-editor (wavelab, sound forge, cool edit, etc.), and zoom in and manually pick out the spikes and just pull them down alone. Ie. by highlighting the spike, and then normalising the spike by -10dB (or whatever the average dB level is either side of the peak). With Cool Edit you can simply zoom in and grab the offending spike points and pull them down to any desirable level with your mouse.

Voila, instant headroom, and no need to process the rest of the surrounding waveform. The less haphazard utilitarian processing the better.

[grs]

Nuendo and Cubase have a GAIN setting on each channel, so you would never really need to normalise a recorded wav file. Just adjust the gain of any low level tracks.

Just substitute the word Normalise with Gain and then it is not a mysterious effect.