Does anyone use Normalize?

I was looking at ways to boost an audio track level, and came across Process > Apply Effect > Normalize.
 
As mentioned in the documentation, Normalize sure seems to erode S/N ratio, particularly at the higher levels, because it also boosts the amplitude of any background noise.  Is Normalize an older tool that is might be redundant to some newer tools that might function smarter?
 
I realize that EQ is another way of doing this, and probably provides the most control over the results.  Just wondering if anyone uses Normalize.
 

AFAIK, normalising does not affect S/N ratio, because noise and signal are boosted equally (?).

Many seem to think normalising is poison. I think if you realise what it does (and doesn't) it sure has it's uses here and there. Just do not think it's a routine for boosting all tracks after recording too low.

I've also read opinions that some software do normalising better than others, but that I can not comment.

Kalle Rantaaho


AFAIK, normalising does not affect S/N ratio, because noise and signal are boosted equally (?).

Yes... of course, I missed that. It is a ratio, so it stays the same when you normalise.


And you are absolutely correct regarding using it for "routine" boosting or track levels that are recorded too low. At the end of the day, you should track at the right level to start with.


However, it is inevitable that, from time to time, you are given a third party recording, and I prefer to normalise a poor recording over increasing its gain in the mix, which is the other thing that you could do. It all depends on what you are dealing with...


Bottom line, for me... normalise = last resort

normalise is certainly not a "last resort" technique IMO and has zero downsides and more accuracy than using gain...as it is a deterministic result referenced gain setting.

IMO it IS however, only useful for completed tracks.. not recordings or clips...  you got gain sliders for those situations.

I use normalize quite often. 

A proper understanding of what it is and what it does is paramount to using it correctly.  

Yes it will increase the noise floor by the same amount as everything else.  So it is really most useful if the track is a quiet track to start with. 

However, proper envelope use can allow the noise to be hidden somewhat in the music. 

I do not hesitate to use it to boost a track if need be. Of course, I'm soloing the track to listen carefully.  

I also use it at the end in my wave editor to boost the output level of the wave to around 96% of max. Using normalize as opposed to compression allows me to keep the dynamics intact.  My compression is usually applied in the export from Cake and then I normalize it in my editor. 

I have pretty waves and the sound is clean and un-smashed sounding.

http://www.soundclick.com...34&songID=10369122  the wave of this song is the picture below.  I used normalize on it. 

Nothing wrong w/ normalizing - as long as you don't depend upon it for day to day operation instead of proper recording technique.  Sometimes a recording comes out too quiet to be easily fitted into a mix.  If you are doing it on most or many tracks, you need to look at your technique and boost the gain going in.  A simple but obvious fact is it is easy to play and record a "quiet" track so it pre-fits the mix, instead of capturing it loud and bringing it down later.  I know, I've done that.

@

synkrotron

Kalle Rantaaho


AFAIK, normalising does not affect S/N ratio, because noise and signal are boosted equally (?).

Yes... of course, I missed that. It is a ratio, so it stays the same when you normalise.


And you are absolutely correct regarding using it for "routine" boosting or track levels that are recorded too low. At the end of the day, you should track at the right level to start with.

Thanks for the clarification; I stand corrected regarding Normalize and S/N ratio. 
 
My specific use of Normalize has been to boost the level of 6 relatively weak audio signals coming from a guitar with a hexaphonic pickup, running into an RMC "Fanout Box" that outputs each string's signal to a separate 1/4" input jack on my UA-101, and mapped from there to 6 SONAR tracks.  I have the DIP switches on the UA-101 set to Mic level on these 6 inputs, which improves the signal level into SONAR by several dB, but the levels are still fairly weak.  The signal level is therefore what it is.  Unless I put 6 channels of hardware preamp between the Fanout Box and the UA-101, my only option is to boost the gain as needed within SONAR.

I have my reasons for recording 6 tracks of individual guitar string signals, and I just need to optimize it as best as I can.  The S/N is not the best, due primarily to the Fanout Box being in the signal chain.  I'm using short, premium quality TRS cables between the Fanout Box and the UA-101.  And there's a fresh 9V battery in the guitar to drive the hexaphonic pickup.
 
From all the responses above, it seems that my best options are a Normalize/gate combo (leaving enough headroom so as not to clip when plugins are added later during mixing), or a compressor/gate combo, or either Normalize or a compressor with a low-pass filter to consistently suppress the hiss noise (trading off some presence).
 
Any further feedback appreciated.
 

Hi. I use Normalize less that I used to. But I use it when needed. I still have an old key binding that I have had for years for both Normalize and Gain.
All the best.

jpetersen
Yet another old thread suddenly re-activated.

I did not notice that Oops...

i never use normalize, but rather Ozone 4

I doubt it would have much immediate impact on sales, but regardless I think it's a great idea for a master bus plug-in.

Paul P

bitflipper
It also reminds me of a feature I've long wished DAWs had: RMS normalization. Now, that would be handy. Peak normalization, not so much.

[I know you're aware of this, bitflipper]
Sonar could distinguish itself by incorporation normalization and metering to EBU R128.
Instant euro sales and a challenge to other daws.

Amen! Normalize to LUFS values. Normalize to RMS values with user-set RMS time window, both avarage RMS and peak RMS value based.
PUHHHHHHHH-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!
 
 

Agree about RMS and LUFS. I'd go as far as to say I can't personally think of a use for peak normalisation in mix. Gains you nothing that you don't gain from the, er, gain knob.

Paul P

Anderton
I doubt it would have much immediate impact on sales, but regardless I think it's a great idea for a master bus plug-in.

 
 
Doesn't a plug-in only take into account what's happening at one particular instant (maybe looking ahead, but how far?).  I get the impression that you'd need something more like a Region FX that treats a track/bus as a whole and constantly updates and displays the loudness value for its contents.
 
 

Well, you can fudge that by just letting the track play over time and aggregating the loudness data. That's what Izotope Insight does. But yeah, a RegionFX loudness analysis tool would be a wonderful thing.