Question about normalizing

Seems when I normalize, it increases / decreases the volume of the whole wave file proportionally.

Is there an effect that brings quiet parts of the wave up to match the amplitude of the loud parts so the volume is consistent throughout the track?

I had thought normalization would do this. but it appears to be increasing the amplitude of the whole wave verses evening it out.

If by loud and quiet parts you mean sections of the composition, like sections of a bar or two, it's better to even those with volume automation.

The shorter peaks and hits you handle with compression after the rough planing is done.

If you aim for loud tracks, you need to take the compression into account already on track level - for example with drums and bass. Piano can also be an instrument (with unexperienced player) that has to be tamed with comp already in mixing stage.

I was just asked this question over at a Classical Guitar forum where I hang out.  The OP's subject surrounded the Zoom H2 being noisy since all of his normalized tracks had noise in them. 
 
I have owned the H2 and H4N for years - I have two H2's in the loaner kit for my graduate students.  In more than 30 years of recording classical guitar clients (including Barrueco, Russel, Goni, Cobo, Holmquist, Vieaux, Temo, to name a few) and tons of orchestras for CD and NPR broadcast I have never normalized any recording. I teach my students not to use any normalization on their recordings. Normalization algorithms are non-musical fundamentally and cannot manage wide crest factors realistically. 

 I don't use the onboard microphones on the H4n, typically I use DPA's into the preamps - the level setting is critical. I have also suggested in other threads here to use the High Pass filter during recording. 

 I think the suggestions about capture levels and proximity to source are right on. Summary - get good capture levels, possibly introduce a very small amount of Multiband Compression in post-production if needed and that's all you should ever need. -D

OK, so I found a thing in audition called volume leveler that did the trick but based on your comments, that is a band aid versus fixing the root correct? Where can I learn more about compression and how to use it properly? I tried using a compressor on my effects chain (toneport UX2) and it made the vocal track sound really odd so I took it off. I assume I am not implementing it correctly. With that compressor on if I had words that started and ended with soft vowel sounds the beginning and ending of the word had a bit of a muffled feeling.

DonM

When I am covering the section in my course called 'energy management' here is the outline:


#1 Track with a usable level and a manageable dynamic range
#2 EQ before managing dynamics when mixing
#3 Manage macro dynamics first - Large sections in mix where vocals / solos must be centric - automation in track and stems is the way to do this
#4 Manage micro dynamics last - this is track / stem / two bus compression.  Typically multiband.  If you are using compression before step 4 your mileage may vary.  


Most folks don't distinguish energy management in the stages that I have mentioned above and that is why so many people experience wide differences in the energy of their projects.  Some folks know these stages more innately and perform them without even noticing it - they typically have great results due to their experience.


Summary: use compression when and where it is appropriate.  Learning how to use a compressor is easier when applied in the proper stage of a project.


-D

This is the most useful thing I've read about compression in a long time. Thanks


R

Bristol_Jonesey


If you're really new to mixing, you need to spend as lot of time reading up on the subject.

This is a great start.

As is this

You'll eventually want to own this

I've also heard that this is a great book, but I've yet to read it

B:
Agreed on the links.  Two of those texts are required in my advanced course.  I also point people to Charles Dye's work.  I was listening to the Ricky Martin song that really hit hard with an ITB mix by CD.  Big news in those days and really a shocker for a bunch of big board guys.  Mixing is both art and science.  I do warn my students to avoid 'making things sound good' as apposed to making things sound proper.  Proper is definable, achievable and repeatable.  Good is slippery language that can be transitory from day to day or even hour to hour.  Listen over long periods compare and measure.  Just some thoughts


-D

I am sending my stuff out to have it mixed and mastered I just don't want to provide something that cannot be polished :)

Garbage in Garbage out. I want to provide the cleanest garbage i can :)

I am sending my stuff out to have it mixed and mastered I just don't want to provide something that cannot be polished :) Garbage in Garbage out. I want to provide the cleanest garbage i can :)

If that's the case then you shouldn't have to worry about levels at all, as long as they're not ridiculously low or clipping. If the mixer decides some tracks need to come up, he can do that as easily as you can. If your tracks are somewhere within -30db and -6db you should be fine.


What you do want to do is crank each track up and listen to it soloed on headphones. What you're listening for are extraneous noises (fan noise, crackles, rumble, traffic, the TV in the next room) that might warrant re-recording. Don't worry about noise during the silent parts, as the mixer should clean that stuff up for you.

sock monkey


I use normalization a lot because I do a lot of live recording. I keep my levels on the "safe" side as a result.  I use Wave Lab.  Do not even bother with Sonars normalization, it is a pour example. Wave Lab has a properly implemented process.
But it is a tool you need to understand to use properly. It needs to be in the right sequence of working as Don has said. It is not the first thing you do with a file that is low in volume. It's more likely the last.

In the end it will simply take the file and bring the volume up ( or down) to a pre set level. But if there is one peak in there that will always be the highest level. You must deal with stray transients first, either manually ( preferred) or with a multi band compressor. All Eq must also be factored in too. One little poped P etc. It's almost the same as using gain, but gain can put the file over were as normalization simply sets a top level and will not go over the set level.

I tool copy the tracks in question into Wave Lab.

SM:
 
Much of my stuff is 'live' too - chamber orchestra, large orchestras, etc. 
 
I was thinking about your comparison of the Sonar Normalization compared to WaveLab.  It's interesting to me since I never use that process.  Normalization operates at peak level rather than RMS - I wonder if the WaveLab algorithm for normalization considers more than just peak - have you done a comparision of the same clip normalized in both tools?  I'd be interested in that data.  Anyway - I'm glad you're getting useful results with it.  At the radio station where my stuff is broadcast, the engineers use normalization all the time on spoken stuff - in fact I notice when our local spots sit in between the network feeds our staff can be 8 to 12 dbu hotter - pretty funny
 
-D