Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: normalizing (Read 4396 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

normalizing

Hi

I have a question about normalizing uncompressed recordings from fm broadcastings, when should I use normalizing? have a few recordings with peakleves around 70% and up, should I normalize these ones or just leave them as they are?

and if I should normalize, what should I set the levels to?

normalizing

Reply #1 –
I would recommend using Replaygain instead of Normalizing. Normalizing permanently edits the datastream whereas Replaygain only sets a tag value on how should the volume be modified for optimal playback results.

normalizing

Reply #2 –
Quote
I would recommend using Replaygain instead of Normalizing. Normalizing permanently edits the datastream whereas Replaygain only sets a tag value on how should the volume be modified for optimal playback results.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=272970"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


thanks!

normalizing

Reply #3 –
Quote
Hi

I have a question about normalizing uncompressed recordings from fm broadcastings, when should I use normalizing? have a few recordings with peakleves around 70% and up, should I normalize these ones or just leave them as they are?

and if I should normalize, what should I set the levels to?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=272952"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Depends on what you want to do with the files. Default is not to change the audio in any way, thus to avoid normalizing. Borisz' suggestion does this.
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?

normalizing

Reply #4 –
Hello,

To achieve a true normalization uses some specific software of edition to the of treatment: 
 
Cool Edict Pro 2.0, Wavelab 5.0 MagiX Samplitude 7.. etc..

normalizing

Reply #5 –
Quote
Hello,

To achieve a true normalization uses some specific software of edition to the of treatment: 
 
Cool Edict Pro 2.0, Wavelab 5.0 MagiX Samplitude 7.. etc..
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=274638"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One doesn't need an expensive wav editor for that simple task, although I'm using CEP.
It should be possible with EAC's (costs: 0€) wav editor, for example.
Normalization in 16bit (audio CD) format is a very simple process; it just multiplies every sample with the same normalization factor. Note that there are no differences in the quality between different programs, unless the audio is dithered.
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?

normalizing

Reply #6 –
Hello precisionist,

I gave out a personal opinion rightly because I make the mastering audio, and there I believe over to know the finality of the product. 
Otherwise, with regard to the price to our time, NET doesn't endure a no reproach. 
 
To make is a thing but well to make differs by far.

normalizing

Reply #7 –
Quote
Hello precisionist,

I gave out a personal opinion rightly because I make the mastering audio, and there I believe over to know the finality of the product. 
Otherwise, with regard to the price to our time, NET doesn't endure a no reproach. 
 
To make is a thing but well to make differs by far.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=274943"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Please stop talking gibberish.

Normalizing is a well understood process and there are no quality differences in it, except if you use dithering, as was already stated above.

normalizing

Reply #8 –
I apologize Garf, you are perfectly right. 
The goal of the forum resides in the sharing of the ideas and no in the "friction of the terms" 
 
To soon Garf