EBU R-128 specificies a generous 23 db of headroom, vs 20 db for SMPT RP
200:2002, or 14 db for Replay Gain. That more generous head room might be
the problem for noisier sources or amateur recordings, where the useful
content is flirting with the noise floor of the source media.
Steve
Steve Greene
(301) 842-8923
An independent archival professional specializing in still photography,
moving images and recorded sound.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:09 PM Shai Drori <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I guess this is a stupid question but wouldn't it be easier to change your
> automation to use the Wavelab batch processor? It's a really good one with
> many automation options.
> בברכה,
> שי דרורי. 0544-470-420
> מומחה לשימור ודיגיטציה של נגטיבים אודיו וידאו ופילם 8-35ממ
> Cheers
> Shai Drori
> Expert digitization services for Audio Video
> 3K scanning for film 8mm-35mm
> Timeless Recordings Music Label
> www.audiovideofilm.com
> [log in to unmask]
> Tripadvisor level 6 contributor, level 15 restaurant expert
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 9:06 PM Gary A. Galo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > RMS normalization in Sound Forge also causes clipping. I always do peak
> > normalization. I do find that using the Statistics function under Tools,
> > and checking RMS level, can be very helpful in matching apparent loudness
> > from one track to the next.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mickey Clark
> > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 1:40 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Normalization Question
> >
> > Hello-I found that RMS in Nero would create clipping - setting to
> maximum
> > is preferred-Mickey
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Seubert
> > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 9:39 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [ARSCLIST] Normalization Question
> >
> > UCSB is digitizing Edison Diamond Discs from the teens and 1920s and
> > putting them online in DAHR. We are normalizing access files using EBU
> > R-128 to -16 LUFS. When we do this manually in Wavelab it sounds great.
> > When we batch process using ffmpeg (double pass), files with certain
> noise
> > profiles come out sounding terrible, full of volume pumping. RMS
> > normalization in ffmpeg works fine. Questions are, does EBU R-128 not
> work
> > well with noisy content? Why does the normalizer in Wavelab work so much
> > better than ffmpeg? And finally, is there any reason not to just use RMS
> > normalization? Our workflow is automated, so using Wavelab isn't an
> option.
> >
> >
> > I can probably share files if anybody want to hear.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > David Seubert
> >
> > UCSB
> >
>
|