Normailze...why not make it easy

[daddyunicorn]

Why in the hell must we open waveform editor in order to normalize? Most other software you just click on the damn audio file and normalize it.

If you can apply Audio / spectral buy hilighting a waveform , then why must we go extra step to open the Waveform editor??

Please?? Tell me this is fixed in 4.5

[aaronlyon]

Why? I don't know. But if you survey 100 digital audio engineers about whether they every use Normalize, 99 will say no. It has no musical benefit. If the signal is too weak, rerecord at a decent level, or use the Trim plug-in to boost as needed.

-aaron

[wonder]

well recorded material wont need normalizing

[dtobocman]

Originally posted by Aaron Lyon:
Why? I don't know. But if you survey 100 digital audio engineers about whether they every use Normalize, 99 will say no. It has no musical benefit. If the signal is too weak, rerecord at a decent level, or use the Trim plug-in to boost as needed.

-aaron

Word.

[Timeline]

Please?? Tell me this is fixed in 4.5

No, it's the same.

As far as the fact that it is designed to be inconvenient you are right. They won't change it.

As to the use of normalization, well, it does bring up noise but some times you need to level a word or two on a quick vocal passage when automation takes a bit to program. I actually use trim for a reach some times. Same noise issues.

I understand what you are saying and sympathise. I feel that all DAW functions should be designed with operator ease in mind and agree it could have been done better but trim is down on the list too.

Can I bitch now... Thanks...I needed that.

Cheers,

G

[Don T]

Hello:
Personally, I think it's a good idea to keep the destructive editing functions seperate. The only time I use them is as a last resort.

[Resonant Alien]

Originally posted by Aaron Lyon:
Why? I don't know. But if you survey 100 digital audio engineers about whether they every use Normalize, 99 will say no. It has no musical benefit. If the signal is too weak, rerecord at a decent level, or use the Trim plug-in to boost as needed.

-aaron

Agreed. Normalizing is a mathematical process, not a musical one. If you are trying to bring up the overall level of your mix, use a good brick wall limiter like the UAD Precision Limiter or such.

[chrispick]

If you are trying to bring up the overall level of your mix, use a good brick wall limiter like the UAD Precision Limiter or such.

And, if you're trying to bring up the level of a single track you have the Trim plug and volume automation, as others have stated.

But, usually what's more important than cranking up a level is augmenting the perceived volume of a track. There are numerous ways to pull this off (e.g.. compression, EQing the hits or their harmonics), but probably the best way is to arrange a song so numerous sounds aren't competing for the same frequency space.

Oh yeah. Normalization bad.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Don T:
Hello:
Personally, I think it's a good idea to keep the destructive editing functions seperate. The only time I use them is as a last resort.

I'm with you. Don. And I think that's why MOTU relegated Normalizing to the Waveform Editor because it is destructive. Once applied it cannot be undone.

[Gibble]

On the positive side.

The normalize function works really well when you are dealing with pre-recorded audio from different sources ( MiniDisc, DAT, etc.) which have been recorded by vocal students during their lessons in studio. Most vocal students use a variety of recording devices and each one has different settings, only a few students actually know how to adjust the record levels to attain a zero db level. The benefit to normalize in this case is that when the audio is imported and edited they can then be brought up to the same 0db level using Normalize and thus can be played back at a constant volume level. For this kind of sound processing I have not detected any increase in noise on the recording, but then again the quality of the source may be suspect.

[terencepalmer]

Well, actually...

Normalization is not "bad." You may be bringing up the noise floor, but you aren't changing the signal to noise ratio. In reality, this means there is no actual difference between normalizing and trimming up to the equivalent volume. But if, like me, you are mixing through a console with outboard effects, then you are bringing in a number of other factors. Analog gear generally has a volume area that subjectively sounds better than louder or softer signals-Faders, eqs, compressors, reverbs, and delays. Too quiet and the noise floor of the analog gear comes into the picture. Too loud and distortion comes into the picture. For me, normalizing brings the audio up into a more easily workable area.

Does a well-recorded signal need normalizing? Probably not. But as it is, the input level that I can send into my DP set-up is about 10dBs quieter than what I can send to my analog setup. Plus, digital doesn't deal with transients that peak out as well as analog does. So do I record as loud as I can, with the chance of blowing a take if a note is played or sung too loud, or do I err on the side of caution and potentially compromise some level in exchange for definitely not peaking out?

And...as far as DP is concerned, all of the processes are mathematical ones, not musical ones.

[Tritonemusic]

..

[Shooter]

Originally posted by Terence Palmer:
And...as far as DP is concerned, all of the processes are mathematical ones, not musical ones.

In response to that, I can only add 0010011011001101!

[terencepalmer]

My point wasn't really that the math of Normalizing and of Trim was precisely the same. I meant really in the sense of signal-to-noise. I'm sure the math isn't the same, but I'm not concerned about the math. I'm concerned with what I hear.

As far as Normalize being destructive and Trim not, this only applies when Trim is being used as a plug-in. When Trim is applied, it is a destructive operation as well, am I right? I was under the impression that people meant they were applying trim to their audio by things like this:

As to the use of normalization, well, it does bring up noise but some times you need to level a word or two on a quick vocal passage when automation takes a bit to program. I actually use trim for a reach some times.

Trim isn't being used in a case like that is it? It would be easier (or at least as easy) to automate the fader to boost a word than it would be to automate the Trim plug-in to turn on for a word and off after it. So in that case I am assuming Trim is being applied, and therefore is destructively affecting the soundfile. And if Trim is being applied, then we are leaving the 32-bit floating realm is the same way as we are when we normalize. Is the math the same? I'm sure it's not.

[quaver]

Normalizing DOES decrease the signal to noise ratio. when you change the level in a digital system you DOUBLE the quantization noise.

Now if you use Trim and add 10db you are bringing the noise floor up 3db. But when you change your mind and back tghe trimn off 2 db the signal is not degraded further. When you normalise the clip you add the 3db noise, but when you decide its too loud and take it back 2db you add anoth 3db quantisation noise so you are bewhind 3 db.

now there is a caveat: if you bring the level up one entire bit then you do not introduce any noise at all! Sound Consulting has a (vst) plugin that does just this adds gain in something like 3.06db increments.

btw anyh gain changing process (limiter compressor etc) will add quantization noise ... detail (quantization noise is very very low but accumulates as we screw around so take care!