OK. I stand corrected. But let me "reinterpret" here. There is nothing
"normal" about raising the level of every track "to the max" and thinking
you have accomplished a good thing. A sound file really needs to sound
well in relation to to its neighbors, for listening purposes (as opposed to
simple archiving). Where the tracks are parts of the same piece of music,
we usually want the level to remain consistent for that piece of music,
meaning softer tracks will sound softer, etc. That is, unless the goal is
to achieve some kind of "overall compression," where everything is at the
same level (for a disco party?). I don't think this issue is much of a
problem, as it is so fast and easy to raise or lower the level of a track
to where you want it. For unrelated tracks, I always listen to them in
context, so one does not jump out or seem to disappear. You have to hear
this--looking at the computer screen doesn't really tell you what you need
to know about the "apparent" loudness, particularly where any compression
has been applied. A compressed track will always sound louder than it
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Gary A. Galo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I lean towards Lou's definition rather than John's. When a file or
> selection is "normalized", the program scans the file or selection and then
> raises the level of the entire file or selection to bring the loudest peak
> or peaks to maximum level. Most engineers I know do not bring the loudest
> peaks to 0 dB, but rather leave a little headroom. Some normalize to -0.1
> dB. I'm a bit more conservative - I normalize to -0.5 dB.
> When you go through a file and match apparent levels from one track to the
> next, not every track will be normalized to achieve this. Under the Tools
> menu, Sound Forge has a useful gadget called Statistics, which give you a
> slew of level information on your file or selection. I find that RMS level
> is useful for matching levels from one track to the next, but the ear is
> the final arbiter, of course. But, remember, level matching is not
> I don't understand Paul's view that normalizing is bad practice. Benchmark
> makes a big deal about "intersample overs", which they eliminate in their
> DAC2 and DAC3 converters by reducing level of the incoming datastream by
> 3.5 dB. But, they also point out that intersample overs are not likely to
> be a problem at sampling rates above 48 kHz, so if you're recording at 96
> kHz, you should not have to worry about them. All normalizing should be
> done with your file still at high res - 96/24 or higher. When ALL work is
> done, resample to 44.1 if you're going to make CDs, and convert to 16 bits
> as the very last step. That way everything you do will have been done with
> 24 bits of resolution. Following these practices, I fail to see how
> normalizing is bad.
> Gary Galo
> Audio Engineer Emeritus
> The Crane School of Music
> SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676
> "Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
> Arnold Schoenberg
> "A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be believed."
> Igor Markevitch
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Haley
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 1:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] RX5, etc.
> Sorry, Lou, not the way I have seen "normalized" used. Perhaps that is
> related to what you are saying, if one views the exercise as raising all
> the tracks to their "max." It is about balancing the relative level among
> a number of tracks,not just raising one track to its max level.
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Tim Gillett <[log in to unmask]>
> > The "swish" energy is possibly full of highs and the loudest thing in
> > the recording, which is why a standard denoiser wont touch it. It's
> > looking to reduce low level sounds.
> > The swish will also probably contain frequencies way above that of
> > the wanted program, as well as above human audibility.
> > For access, I'd declick and then probably subjectively filter out a
> > lot of those highs, and even lows, but without an audio sample hard to
> be sure.
> > Tim
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 2:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] RX5, etc.
> > On 3/4/2018 12:10 PM, Lou Judson wrote:
> >>> It is also possible that the clipping sounds are from overloading
> >>> the D/A, whilst the waveform is okay. It is called ï¿½intersample
> >>> peaksï¿½ and one reason I avoid normalizing. Try normalizing to -1
> >>> or -2 and see if it still sounds bad. Or, as I said, use a
> >>> look-ahead limiter, again instead of normalizing!
> >> Yet another reason why normalizing is generally a bad policy.
> >> Peace,
> >> Paul
> >> <L>
> >>> Lou Judson
> >>> Intuitive Audio
> >>> 415-883-2689
> >>> On Mar 4, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Tim Gillett
> >>> <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> The crackling noises after normalising sound like clipping. You
> >>> could
> >>>> visually inspect (by magnifying) the waveform peaks both before and
> >>>> after normalising. Have you tried normalising but minus a few db's?
> >>>> Tim
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus