Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Juho L
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Panopticon
so the only advantage I'd see to compressing over normalizing is if there are actually dynamics that need to be subdued.
|
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