Yahoo Groups archive

The Logic Off Topic list

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:27 UTC

Thread

[L-OT]Should you always Normalize?

[L-OT]Should you always Normalize?

2002-02-21 by blue alien

I find that when I make a recording in Logic, to my knowledge, I
minimize headroom by setting the level as high as possible without
bumping the red clip meters, but when I import the same recording into
another audio program, the audio level seems to low, and the recording
seems to lack clarity, and punchiness.

	Do y'all normalize every recording to increase it's clarity? While the
828 may not have the best A/D converters, seems like for my pourposes I
should get a better recording.  Is there a way to batch process audio in
Logic?  Anyone know what the 'Audio Energizer' actually does?  Isn't it
an attempt at computerized mastering?

chems


_____________________________________________
blue alien house inc.
http://www.galaxymall.com/site/bluealienhouse
an interstellar media-arts collective     
_____________________________________________

Re: [L-OT]Should you always Normalize?

2002-02-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of blue alien, 21-02-2002:

>	I find that when I make a recording in Logic, to my knowledge, I
>minimize headroom by setting the level as high as possible without
>bumping the red clip meters, but when I import the same recording into
>another audio program, the audio level seems to low, and the recording
>seems to lack clarity, and punchiness.

About the level being too low: that can hardly be true.  When I play 
a recording through another audio program, and through the same card, 
it sounds just as it sounds in Logic -- and it should.  After all, 
it's all zero's and ones, right?  And the software itself shouldn't 
influence the sound or volume.

>	Do y'all normalize every recording to increase it's clarity?

No, never.  Except maybe, as Joeri already wrote, when you want to 
use a low level sample in a sampler-context.

You should realise that the "benefits" of normalising usually aren't 
that big.  Suppose your recording's volume is at about 50%.  Since 
every bit adds a factor of 2, this means that you'll effectively have 
a 15-bit recording instead of 16-bit.  Not bad at all -- and 
certainly less bad than it would seem at first glance.  I.e. a 16-bit 
recording at half volume is NOT 8-bit or so.

Normalising obviously introduces some distortion -- the numbers have 
to be multiplied by some factor and then rounded to the next whole 
number -- and it's imo valid to wonder if this distortion is 
outweighed by the 1-bit (or so) gain.  Personally I don't believe so. 
I just record as hot as possible, and leave it at that.  After I made 
the final mix, I might apply an additional bit of compression to 
increase the punchiness a bit, and to smoothen the sometimes too 
large volume-differences.

Others will probably strongly disagree...  The only real measure you 
have are your ears.  Try out different scenarios and see what you 
like best.  However, be aware of the big volume-trap: too often you 
think that something sounds better only because it's louder.  When 
listening to different variations, make sure you hear them all at 
approximately the same volume in order to judge the relative merits 
of one approach or the other. I know I've been caught too often by 
this one...

>Anyone know what the 'Audio Energizer' actually does?  Isn't it
>an attempt at computerized mastering?

It keeps the peak level the same, while increasing the average level 
-- according to the manual.  Sounds a bit like a compressor to me... 
Never used it myself, and probably never will.


cheers,
HJ
-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT]Should you always Normalize?

2002-02-22 by monsdrum

> Normalising obviously introduces some distortion -- the numbers 
have 
> to be multiplied by some factor and then rounded to the next whole 
> number -- 

Afaik this isn't right. To my understanding, the numbers are not 
multiplied by a factor, but rather added to a number high enough to 
make the peak hit 0 db. Thus there is no rounding anything, and no 
distortion.
The problem is rather, that when raising the peak level you also 
raise the noise floor. A lot of other dynamic processes are much more 
useful, but also harder to use (thinking of expander, compressor, 
limiter, and all those other machines and plugins that will work 
wonders with your sound just as fast as they'll wreck it 
completely...)

regards

monsdrum

Re: [L-OT]Should you always Normalize?

2002-02-22 by Spectro

>  > Normalising obviously introduces some distortion -- the numbers
>have
>>  to be multiplied by some factor and then rounded to the next whole
>>  number --
>
>Afaik this isn't right. To my understanding, the numbers are not
>multiplied by a factor, but rather added to a number high enough to
>make the peak hit 0 db. Thus there is no rounding anything, and no
>distortion.

No, They *are* multiplied. Adding a value will offset the waveform.

S.
--

Re: [L-OT]Should you always Normalize?

2002-02-22 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra

Thoughts from the mind of monsdrum, 22-02-2002:

>  > Normalising obviously introduces some distortion -- the numbers
>  > have to be multiplied by some factor and then rounded to the next whole
>  > number --
>
>Afaik this isn't right. To my understanding, the numbers are not
>multiplied by a factor, but rather added to a number high enough to
>make the peak hit 0 db. Thus there is no rounding anything, and no
>distortion.

Huh?  So you say that if you have e.g. (silly example) 2 samples with 
values 1 and 2, and normalise them to the full 65536-scale (16 bit), 
you would get samples with values 65535 and 65536?  This can't be 
true, as the relative volume of both samples isn't preserved.  Those 
samples should become 32768 and 65536 -- i.e. multiplied by 32768, 
and thus still a factor 2 apart after normalising.
Hence my idea that some distortion is introduced: if you have to 
multiply by some non-whole number, such as 1.3, most resulting values 
will be non-whole and thus have to be rounded.

[5 minutes later]  OK, I just did a simple experiment: take an audio 
file and draw 2 humps in it, one going up to 10% and the other to 
20%.  Select and normalize.  The result is 2 humps at 50% and 100%. 
So yes, there's definitely some sort of multiplication involved.  The 
same result can't be achieved by whichever kind of addition...

>The problem is rather, that when raising the peak level you also
>raise the noise floor.

Sure, that would be another problem.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>
Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Re: [L-OT]Should you always Normalize?

2002-02-22 by monsdrum

Hendrik wrote:
> [5 minutes later]  OK, I just did a simple experiment: take an 
audio 
> file and draw 2 humps in it, one going up to 10% and the other to 
> 20%.  Select and normalize.  The result is 2 humps at 50% and 100%. 
> So yes, there's definitely some sort of multiplication involved.  
The 
> same result can't be achieved by whichever kind of addition...

... and furthermore, Spectro also wrote:
> No, They *are* multiplied. Adding a value will offset the waveform.

-----

OK, I stand corrected. Sorry for spewing out wrong info. At least it 
serves to my defense, that I actually felt pretty convinced I was 
right.

It never stops; you learn something new every day!

regards

monsdrum

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.