I advise anyone and everyone to avoid Normalization at all costs. 

jhonvargas


This looks overly complicated guys.
 
Making good sounding music should be simpler than this.
 
Cheers,
 
Jhon

Making good sound music can be simpler than this.  Recording and mastering, however, are not.
 
 

Making music is subjective and emotional. Engineering is objective and theoretical. A true master is one who opens the right door between the two. 

brconflict


I advise anyone and everyone to avoid Normalization at all costs. 

So if you record a track at too low a level and can't bring it up to par with the fader, would you use (Process, Apply affect) Gain instead? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

M_Glenn_M

brconflict


I advise anyone and everyone to avoid Normalization at all costs. 

So if you record a track at too low a level and can't bring it up to par with the fader, would you use (Process, Apply affect) Gain instead? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

I think I see your point. You're referring to a single track, not whole mix? If that's the case, there's no harm in it,although it may not produce the result you want. However, if it's still too quiet, I'd find that Peak and edit it or use a Peak-only limiter. Sonar is OK with dealing with "Overs" at the track level, but you would want to try and avoid this. 

It sounds like the track may be REALLY quiet, rendering it too quiet for acceptable use. Almost all tracks should be tracked/recorded at a "busy" level. 

IOW, isn't normalization just a shortcut to setting a volume peak manually? 

As far as my limited knowledge goes, then yes, this is exactly what normalizing does. It rasies the WHOLE of the waveform up to a predetermined level

I've never really understood why a ME is put on such a high pedestal if they are initially handed a great mix

Indeed, a great mix will require no 'mastering' other than matching it in level to other songs on the same project/album.

Depends on what medium and end result the Master is for. Some of the best mixes I've ever heard would never meet radio standards or sound big enough to compete with louder Masters, which is tragic for the industry. But this gets very subjective. In a perfect world, when a mix is done, that's it--it's done, and the only thing an ME needs to do is merely encode it or transfer it to its destination medium. Classical music should be a great example of this. Hard Rock? Never happens anymore. That was the '70's.

Fortunately, we've reached the top of what is possible, and a real example of carnage left by a bad mastering job was Rush's Vapor Trails (the first pressings). You can audibly hear clipping on many CD players except the newest hardware. It's horrible and fatiguing on the ears. So, we know where our limits are, and what people don't like when it goes too far.

So, I'm happy to say that I want good, loud masters, but I no longer feel the need to keep hunting for the loudest ME I can find. 

Bob Ludwig raved to me about his work on the last GnR album, in that he was asked NOT to smash the mix to oblivion for loudness. But in reality, it likely was compressed a little, or limited to get it up to a level where people would still think it was a rocking CD. It's a good Master, for sure. 

There's very few (many none) mixes left that really don't need a final touch from a Mastering Engineer. To do that really entails the Mixing Engineer is engaged in modern Mastering practices, most likely. That's not a terrible thing, but it's happening despite what the recommendations are. 

 

Normalization is a useful tool, not a cure all.

I've just been transferring an LP (actually 2) of Jesus Christ Superstar to mp3s.  Even flat out I was getting a weak signal into Sound Forge.  I used the normalize function to -16 dB (the preset) and it worked fine to bring up the vol. to something respectable.  Did it for each side file and then edited it into the songs I wanted to keep.

Worked fine.

@