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

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.

Just compress it and that's it.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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

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

Wow. I buy and read that.
________
Medical marijuana dispensaries

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

Cheers,

Jase

Greg simmons. heard that name before.

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.

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