xlm Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I've read several times here people advising others not to use normalization during bouncing. Recently I found an Apple discussion post which explains the benefits of using normalization during bouncing: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2890?viewlocale=en_US For the record, why do people advise against normalization during bouncing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I always tell everyone willing to listen to never, ever use Normalization in the Bounce window. Because that means that you're not bouncing what you're listening to when pressing play, so what's the point? Mix it so it sounds good, then once you're happy with the sound, why would you bounce something else? Bounce what you just mixed. That means that normalize option has to be off. I have tried to lobby apple to take that option away from the Bounce window, who knows if they'll listen. I strongly feel it should at least be "Off" by default. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevecowley Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Isn't a normalized file meant to sound exactly the same as a non-normalized file? Does normalizing actually degrade the sound quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 First, note we're not talking about the classic destructive normalize feature, but a 32 bit floating point normalize feature. That feature will yield the same result as if you were to sit here and make sure the highest peak in your project reaches exactly 0.0 dBFS, not less, not more. That means the normalized result will be different from the non-normalized one in two ways: 1) If your project peaks below 0.0 dBFS, the result will sound louder. 2) If your project peaks above 0.0 dBFS, the result will sound softer AND cleaner (since all clipping will go away). I find it easier to get the sound (and level) I want as I'm listening, then bounce exactly what I just listened to, and at the same level. On top of that, who wants their project to peak at exactly 0 dBFS without using a limiter? Either you're doing a mix and you usually want it to peak a little below 0 dBFS, or you're mastering and you usually use a limiter to take care of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addni Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I have tried to lobby apple to take that option away from the Bounce window, who knows if they'll listen. I strongly feel it should at least be "Off" by default. Yes ! so people that don't know what it is won't just keep it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevecowley Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Isn't a normalized file meant to sound exactly the same as a non-normalized file? Does normalizing actually degrade the sound quality? First, note we're not talking about the classic destructive normalize feature, but a 32 bit floating point normalize feature. That feature will yield the same result as if you were to sit here and make sure the highest peak in your project reaches exactly 0.0 dBFS, not less, not more. That means the normalized result will be different from the non-normalized one in two ways: 1) If your project peaks below 0.0 dBFS, the result will sound louder. 2) If your project peaks above 0.0 dBFS, the result will sound softer AND cleaner (since all clipping will go away). I find it easier to get the sound (and level) I want as I'm listening, then bounce exactly what I just listened to, and at the same level. On top of that, who wants their project to peak at exactly 0 dBFS without using a limiter? Either you're doing a mix and you usually want it to peak a little below 0 dBFS, or you're mastering and you usually use a limiter to take care of that. True... I suppose that when I'm mixing, I try to get the peaks near to 0dBFS, but the reason I'd normalize a mix would be so that when I'm testing it on the car stereo and other systems, I'm getting a mix that's as loud as it can be without delving into the mastering world (if I'm planning to get the track mastered by someone else). But you're right, if my mixes are hitting close to 0dBFS then it shouldn't make much difference anyway. I was just curious as to whether Logic's normalization actually degrades the sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I was just curious as to whether Logic's normalization actually degrades the sound. I wouldn't worry about it unless you actually LIKE the way your mix is clipping the Out 1-2 (if it is peaking above 0 dBFS that is). Some producers like a little output clipping. If you're one of them, the Bounce's normalization feature will ruin it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I was just curious as to whether Logic's normalization actually degrades the sound. Not noticeably, done one time. For hobby projects without mastering: - generally bounce with normalize on, as this will either help make your song loud enough compared to other music, or prevent clipping - the exception is if the levels on the Out 1-2 are going into the red on kick beats, and you specifically like the clipping distortion this is causing For professional projects with mastering: - you absolutely should not normalize after mastering - the mastering engineer will probably yell at you if you give him a normalized stereo master (though it doesn't make that much difference with a 24bit file) - there might be some circumstances where you'd normalize a track bounce depending on your workflow - you'd normalize when doing sound design (but probably in an audio editor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 you absolutely should not normalize after mastering Did you mean before? I mean who does anything at all after mastering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I mean who does anything at all after mastering? Someone whose friend mastered their song for them in GarageBand, before they upload it to their MySpace page? Really dumb heavy metal guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Someone whose friend mastered their song for them in GarageBand, before they upload it to their MySpace page? Really dumb heavy metal guy? I guess you could add: Really drunk jazz guy Really high psychedelic trance guy Really stoned reggae guy ...etc, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Someone whose friend mastered their song for them in GarageBand... Almost lost my cookies reading that LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
route-electrique Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Keep that master below -6db at all times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlowerPower Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I don't mind having a Normalize option, especially since I can't hear any signs of reduced sound quality after the normalization process anymore - but mastering guys prefer non-normalized files, because they need some headroom, so if the normalize function would have an option to normalize to eg. -6db (or follow the normalize setting for the Sample Editor), more people would be more happy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Keep that master below -6db at all times Please explain your reasons for this ridiculous statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torsenstarrow Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 why keep it below -6dbfs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashermusic Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Keep that master below -6db at all times Please explain your reasons for this ridiculous statement. That is not a ridiculous statement, if the mix is going to be mastered later. This way, you are giving the mastering engineer some headroom to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holger Lagerfeldt Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Keep that master below -6db at all times Please explain your reasons for this ridiculous statement. That's actually good advice. You want to leave some headroom for mastering in order to avoid internal overloading if the first process is digital, i.e. the signal will change its peak value (up to 3 dB or more) due to phase changes. Even if the signal goes straight to D/A you could easily have overshoots causing 0 dBFS+ distortion at the D/A if your signal is close to full scale. This is caused by the inherent lowpass filtering during digital to analog conversion but could also be caused by simple analog waveform reconstruction of square waveforms (up to 6 db) - hence the -6 dBFS. At 24 bits a peak of -6 dBFS will not affect your quality, i.e. don't be afraid you'll lose bit quality because your signal isn't maxing out. For hobby projects without mastering: - generally bounce with normalize on, as this will either help make your song loud enough compared to other music, or prevent clipping It won't really make any difference in terms of loudness. We evalute loudness primarily based on RMS (average) and not peaks. Since normalizing only addresses peaks it usually has very little impact in terms of loudness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouly Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 We evalute loudness primarily based on RMS (average) and not peaks. Since normalizing only addresses peaks it usually has very little impact in terms of loudness. Exactly, this is why you can find a very special normalization tool called an "RMS Normalizer" in various editing programs. This will bring up the RMS or average level and needs to be used very carefully because it has the potential to ruin a mix. The relationship between the different levels can be adjusted where the relationship between levels is fixed in peak normalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 This way, you are giving the mastering engineer some headroom to work with. This is is utter nonsense - An myth that gets passed around internet forums. If a mastering engineer needs more "headroom to work with" he will attenuate the signal accordingly. The actual reason for avoiding 0dBfs is a precaution against intersample peaks that may not be indicated by your digital peak meters. No other reason. If you wish to learn more about intersample peaks, this is the standard reference {dead link removed by admin}. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashermusic Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 This way, you are giving the mastering engineer some headroom to work with. This is is utter nonsense - An myth that gets passed around internet forums. If a mastering engineer needs more "headroom to work with" he will attenuate the signal accordingly. The actual reason for avoiding 0dBfs is a precaution against intersample peaks that may not be indicated by your digital peak meters. No other reason. If you wish to learn more about intersample peaks, this is the standard reference Read Lagerfeldt's post. He explains it very well. The myth is that there is no purpose to it. And yes, intersample peaks is yet another good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I think you should just ask your mastering engineer what he prefers. He'll give you instructions. Some may want -3 dBFS, or -6 dBFS, and some may be fine with 0 dBFS. In any case, you're not comprimising the quality of your mix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holger Lagerfeldt Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 This way, you are giving the mastering engineer some headroom to work with. This is is utter nonsense - An myth that gets passed around internet forums. If a mastering engineer needs more "headroom to work with" he will attenuate the signal accordingly. The actual reason for avoiding 0dBfs is a precaution against intersample peaks that may not be indicated by your digital peak meters. No other reason. If you wish to learn more about intersample peaks, this is the standard reference Daft, I understand what you're thinking of but you are mixing things up a bit or forgetting the practical reality of things. Read my post (again?) perhaps. You say "the mastering engineer wlll attenuate the signal accordingly". Yes, I could do just that. And of course that happens all the time too. Just doing a 20 Hz lowcut as the first step during mastering can (and often will) lead to a massive jump in volume as the phase shift sets in. But what I've received is a 24 bit fixed signal. Not a floating point. So attenuating that signal to avoid overloading during digital processing would be doing unnecessary processing. I'd rather have that 24 bit file peaking lower to begin with. Also, let's assume I get a very hot mix close to full scale. It's been mixed with intentional clipping on individual tracks. This could lead to quite a square waveform of the entire mix without the mixing engineer ever clipping or limiting the actual master. That kind of mix could lead to 0 dBFS+ signals at the D/A, exceeding the specs of my D/A, leading to distortion. Again, I'd have to attenuate digitally, altering the signal in an unnecessary fashion. Remember that super hot mixes or masters can lead to more than 6 dB above the ceiling when played back. You can read more about it here: Level Control in Digital Mastering http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/nielsen_lund_1999_level_co.pdf 0 dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/nielsen_lund_2000_0dbfs_le.pdf Overload in Signal Conversion http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/nielsen_lund_2003_overload.pdf Stop Counting Samples http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/lund_2006_stop_counting_samples_aes121.pdf Programmed for Distortion Listen to the artifacts produced when hot CDs are sample rate converted or reproduced in a CD player. http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/Programmed_for_Distortion.zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 wddq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holger Lagerfeldt Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Say what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 For hobby projects without mastering: - generally bounce with normalize on, as this will either help make your song loud enough compared to other music, or prevent clipping It won't really make any difference in terms of loudness. We evalute loudness primarily based on RMS (average) and not peaks. Since normalizing only addresses peaks it usually has very little impact in terms of loudness. This always happens to me when I try to keep things simple for new users : ) Yes, "loudness" is qualitative, but peaking at 0dB is certainly louder than the same material peaking at -12dB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holger Lagerfeldt Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Heh heh, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashermusic Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Heh heh, yes. Lagerfeldt, thank God you are on the net. so that I do not feel like a lone voice crying out what I consider common sense in regard to controlling levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shivermetimbers Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The general consensus is not to normalize when bouncing an entire mix. Arguing in favor of normalizing the entire mix speaks loudly about your lack of ability to mix. There is a place for using this function (i.e. sample editor) to fix things in the mix. However, I also feel that it should not be included in the bounce section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holger Lagerfeldt Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 There is a place for using this function (i.e. sample editor) to fix things in the mix. However, I also feel that it should not be included in the bounce section. if they'd included a batch bounce function it could make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.