Craig started a ruckus

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

But like I said earlier, Craig assumes a certain level of intelligence.

 

 

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein.

[Lee Knight]

And the tides turns... this is from the great Terry Manning over at PSW after re-considering.

 

The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that it could be a somewhat similar version of what I do.

 

All of the compressors that I might use on a mix would normally be hardware outboard units, and I would be coming out track-for-track into a large format analogue console for mixing.

 

Although I do not "normally normalise," in the classic definition of the term normalisation, I most definitely ride gain in DAW automation; and on a few occasions, if there is a certain phrase, as Kevin mentioned above, that is "out of range," I might indeed do an Audiosuite Gain change.

 

This, in effect, is giving a much more consistent (dare I say "uniform?") vocal level before any compression is applied (outside of the computer). In other words, it is giving my realistic picture of the vocal related to the track, and the compression is thence forward either "rounding off the edges" in a mild way, and/or adding to the actual sound of the vocal (that "compressed sound" as opposed to just automatic gain riding).

 

 

So if Craig was meaning something like this, I am with him.

 

 

If, however, the suggested normalisation would mean (once again) bringing the highest peak of each region all the way up to 0 dBFS, then I am completely against that. That could leave no headroom for any further DSP changes on the track, and might well result in a harsher, more distorted final product.

 

I don't use it a lot, but does normalisation not allow in some softwares for setting your desired level as peak, rather than just blindly accepting 0?

 

And might one not actually "gain down" some passages fpr consistency just as easily, and with better results, than always going as loud as possible?

 

Level...one of our best friends, but also one of our biggest digital enemies.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

And the tides turns... this is from the great Terry Manning over at PSW after re-considering. This, in effect, is giving a much more consistent (dare I say "uniform?") vocal level before any compression is applied (outside of the computer). In other words, it is giving my realistic picture of the vocal related to the track, and the compression is thence forward either "rounding off the edges" in a mild way, and/or adding to the actual sound of the vocal (that "compressed sound" as opposed to just automatic gain riding).

 

 

Good point. I do a similar thing, in a slightly different way, for the same reason.

[the stranger]

 

I don't use it a lot, but does normalisation not allow in some softwares for setting your desired level as peak, rather than just blindly accepting 0?

 

 

Soundforge lets you set the level.

[Lee Knight]

That was Tery Manning's quote by the way.

 

I am a Sound Forge user...

[Anderton]

FYI I asked the webmaster to reset my password, but no reply yet. In any event, it seems once I quoted more parts of the article, people "got" what I was saying.

 

I loved one of the tips about using post-fader compression, that's pretty cool.

 

I did want to go in there and mention that with most programs these days having signals peak at 0 still subsequent processing as most editors have more than enough headroom. When you get in trouble is when it hits the mixed out.

[UstadKhanAli]

It's one of those things that when taken out of context can seem perplexing; when you're reading the article, it makes a helluva lot more sense.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

I actually sing things backwards, and then reverse the waveform. And then I normalize. And then I keep the faders almost all the way down. That {censored}'s loud! Then I add a ton of reverb. Then I compress it. Then I select the track and delete it. It's a Zen thing. You wouldn't understand.

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Yeah, that's a really funny post!!!

[Anderton]

Y'know, I've tried registering under a different email, asked for my password to be reset, and wrote the webmaster twice...still no way to post over there. That is some exclusive clientele! Too bad, I really would like to add some comments.......

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Y'know, I've tried registering under a different email, asked for my password to be reset, and wrote the webmaster twice...still no way to post over there. That is some exclusive clientele! Too bad, I really would like to add some comments.......

 

 

The Anti-Anderton Conspiracy continues...

[alphajerk]

 

Y'know, I've tried registering under a different email, asked for my password to be reset, and wrote the webmaster twice...still no way to post over there. That is some exclusive clientele! Too bad, I really would like to add some comments.......

 

 

see my post above...

[Anderton]

 

The Anti-Anderton Conspiracy continues...

 

 

I knew it was because of Elvis and all those damned UFOs. Shouldn't have moved so close to Roswell, I guess...I have no one to blame but myself.

[Ryst]

 

Good point. I do a similar thing, in a slightly different way, for the same reason.

 

 

I do the same thing too. In Pro Tools I use the Audiosuite plugin "Gain" in Pro Tools and highlight parts of the vocal that are "too loud" and notch them down by the appropriate amount of db's. I guess you could also do the same thing with volume automation although I can't remember if that is pre or post fader.

 

I never thought this was "normalizing". I thought normalizing was the ways of the satanic so I always stay away from that.

[Anderton]

 

I do the same thing too. In Pro Tools I use the Audiosuite plugin "Gain" in Pro Tools and highlight parts of the vocal that are "too loud" and notch them down by the appropriate amount of db's. I guess you could also do the same thing with volume automation although I can't remember if that is pre or post fader. I never thought this was "normalizing". I thought normalizing was the ways of the satanic so I always stay away from that.

 

 

Well, you can use different tools to accomplish the same end result. Normalization is just a quicker route under some circumstances, particularly because the days of having to normalize to full scale are long gone - you can normalize down or up, and usually, to any percentage of full scale.

[Anderton]

...And I still can't log on to the REP forum! I guess it doesn't matter, it's degenerated into a thread about how Alphajerk sucks, and how their forum can kick the ass of Gear Slutz, HC, etc. Interesting how other people see the world

 

It's also interesting how much mileage you can get out of a thread because someone didn't read an article carefully!

[joel Oporto]

I've been editing audio ever since it was practically possibly in windows 95, and I have always peak normalized vocal phrases since I first saw its possibility in the software. I only view it as a way of "post-recording" riding the levels and a sort of "manual and surgical" compression. I don't do RMS normalizing and would rather apply compression instead but in my experience a good vocal composite done with phrase normalization would be more consistent than any compressor effect because you have to listen and apply it in spots (meaning selective) and not as a general application to the whole track (no compromising). Of course it also has to do with genre, I don't ever do it with classical artists. Just as Craig mentioned "kid Gloves" You can never normalize each phrase to a generally precise overall db level as there will be times when you have to normalize to a different level to keep the sound consistent, ergo you have to listen to the music. The way I see it, its a new and modern way of "riding the faders" and applying "gentle" compression.

So F*ck them if they feel wrong about it because any piece of effect applied, even just the simple "riding the faders" will have already changed the recorded sound from the actual performance and no matter what other people say, to my ears, phrase normalization will in more instances produce a consistent vocal comp than any compressor.

[joel Oporto]

Man!!! I just read the posts in the PSW thread and I got so riled up!

I can't believe that there are so many stupid engineers that don't know what they are talking about!! They seem to think that peak normalization is compression. Its just adjusting levels to a certain peak much as you would do with a volume envelope or a moving fader and phrase-by-phrase normalization is just a more precise way of doing the ride the faders thing. Anybody who draws volume envelopes should be able to understand the concept. Phrase-by-phrase peak normalization will not alter the differences between the loudest part and the softest part of a phrase like a compressor will do because there are no ratios. What it will do is to even out the overall peak volumes of the phrases within the track while maintaining the dynamics within the phrase and that is what a compressor was invented to do!!!!

[John Sayers]

I go through a vocal and change the volume of phrases, of words, of little things like "t"s on the end of words.

 

I agree totally with Craig that it's better than compression. That's why I come to this forum because I find I agree with Craig a lot more than the boofheads on some other forums. I also read and respect his product reviews because they are honest.

[UstadKhanAli]

Well, most of 'em haven't even read the article, much less really thought about what Craig's saying. I mean, I'm always changing the volume on things like vocals, like others here have been saying, using gain. No difference. Works great. People are always so quick to leap down someone else's throat to try and appear like they're really in the know.

[Anderton]

Well thanks guys, you "get" it. I was finally able to log in, and for the sake of completeness for those who bailed on the other thread when it degenerated into "normalization is gay," here's my response:

------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I finally was able to log in thanks to the intervention of the powers-that-be at Pro Sound Web. Thanks Dan and Ernie!

 

Anyway, I'm not sure any of the people who thought "phrase-by-phrase normalization" was a bad idea actually tried it and reported back on the results, but may have considered it from a theoretical standpoint. On the other hand, those who thought the idea possibly had merit seem to be those who used different processes to accomplish the same kind of result, and had actually done something similar.

 

The thing that seems to be hanging a lot of people up is the concept of normalization, so let me explain. I come from the days when we used to do "gain-riding" to insure consistent levels. This was necessary because excessively high levels would saturate tape, while excessively low ones would get lost in the noise. When a singer had an "operatic moment," we'd pull the fader down a bit. Conversely, when the singer "ran out of gas" and trailed off at, say, the end of a line (or for an entire verse), we'd raise it. Part of the object was not to go above a certain level, because if the distortion was audible, it meant re-doing the take.

 

Normalization in a digital audio editing context is pretty much the same thing, but more "automated." Instead of moving the fader up at a certain point, trying to make sure that peaks hit a certain level, then bringing the fader down, with normalization you drag over the area that would normally be defined by the fader-up/fader-down motion, then specify the level you want any peaks to hit. Note that the days when "normalization" implied raising peaks to 0 are long gone. Most, if not all, modern programs let you normalize to a certain percentage of full strength, or to a specific level, like -6 or whatever. This is very handy if, for example, a singer sings a verse more quietly than the chorus, and you want to bring something else up in the song to be on a par with the verse.

 

(Incidentally, from a technical standpoint, there is no significant difference between gain-riding, applying a gain change, using automation to raise levels in a particular section, or normalization other than that with normalization, you can define an upper limit above which no peak will go. It is not the same as compression, as normalization does not alter output in response to input; it simply alters output, period. Mathematically, you can think of compression as roughly analogous to division [as defined by the compression ratio] followed by addition [make-up gain]; normalization is simply addition.)

 

There is nothing inherently evil about normalization any more than there is something inherently evil about gain-riding or changing gain after the fact, or even using automation for that matter. But also, as a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong these days with normalizing to 0, either. The argument "What if you want to add DSP? You'll get clipping" was true several years ago, but with today's high resolution audio engines you have a huge amount of headroom *on individual channels,* and there won't be distortion unless it goes over at the master bus. Here's a simple experiment you can try to prove it to yourself (as well as to find out if your DAW has a modern audio engine):

 

1. In a DAW, set track 1's fader to 0 and your master bus fader to -10.

2. Load a full-level sine wave into track 1 and play it back. It shouldn't distort.

3. Increase the channel fader so the channel meter indicates +6dB over 0 (definitely in the red). You still won't hear distortion, and you won't until it goes over +10, and starts overloading the headroom of the output bus, which IS finite compared to the channel headroom because it's leaving the safety of the computer and going into the outside world, which does not have as much headroom. That's a bit of an oversimplification, of course, but I'm sure you all get the idea and this post is long enough as is...

 

Now, before people start saying "Anderton says you should not worry about channel levels and have everything in the red!"...no, that's not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that the rules have changed. You can get away with a lot of things you couldn't get away with previously. Personally, I keep the master fader at 0 and decrease channel levels to avoid going over 0 at the master out. But that's just me. There are a lot of ways to skin that cat and have it work.

 

Back to the article...it seems that perhaps a major misunderstanding is that those who felt the technique was bogus didn't look at the diagram in the article closely enough. If you do, you can see that those waveforms cover a lot of time - you can't make out individual words or even lines, necessarily. Now, I'm sure I contributed to this misunderstanding by deleting all the solos and breaks between verses and choruses, in order to fit more of the waveform on the page (I wrote the article in three hours just before deadline when another writer didn't come through with a promised article, c'est la vie), so people might have thought the diagram showed a sentence or just a few words if they're not familiar with how vocals look as waveforms. But basically, I'm normalizing multiple lines at a time, even in one case an entire chorus.

 

This is why I said the internal dynamics are preserved. If the chorus has dynamics, then those dynamics within the chorus will not change - the highest level of the chorus will simply be brought up to the level you specify, whether 0 or something else. It should go without saying, although I guess that was assuming too much, that if a part is *meant* to be softer is should remain softer. But if it was not meant to be softer yet ended up softer, that's when you'd want to boost it a bit. You can ride gain, you can use a gain change function, you can do automation, or you can normalize - which I find faster or more pertinent in some cases than those other techniques.

 

Someone commented that the only value he saw to normalization was in mastering, but I don't necessarily agree. I just finished mastering a classical guitar CD by the famed Argentinian guitarist Nestor Ausqui. As expected, the individual tracks were all cut with the idea of using the maximum available headroom. However, some of the pieces were more quiet and introspective, and their peaks needed to be down anywhere from -1 to -3.5 dB compared to 0 (and to the other pieces) in order to properly convey the artist's intention. Normalizing them would have destroyed the dynamics the artist was trying to create.

 

If you want to hear the song from which I pulled the vocal waveforms shown in the mag, go to http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/line-6-toneport/jun-07/29 108 and toward the right side, click on the audio file "You'll Never Find Out (If You Don't Try)." Admittedly, this was done to demonstrate the capabilities of the software I was reviewing, so there's a fair amount of compression, EQ, and reverb; but you'll note that the vocal is consistent, and doesn't have a lot of the artifacts you'd normally get if you applied as much compression as I did. That's the whole point of what I was describing, and you can hear it for yourself rather than speculate as to whether or not it would work. Just remember that the normalization is happening on pretty long sections of the song. In fact, just typing that made me realize that calling the process "section-by-section" normalization, while perhaps not as clear to a musician, would likely have been clearer to a recording engineer.

 

And while I'm mentioning my music, if you want to hear/see something completely different, go to http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Blogs/CraigAnderton/Cr aigAndertonOfEV2/, scroll down to the middle of the page, and check out the video. The drummer is Brian Hardgroove from Public Enemy (yes, from classical guitarists to Public Enemy...when I say I like all kinds of music, I mean it!!).

 

Finally, regarding EQ magazine, of course everyone is entitled to their opinion...and I'm very glad they are, because opinions on EQ have really turned around lately. When I became Executive Editor, the magazine was down to 64 pages and had lost a considerable number of readers and advertisers. The magazine is now running at a consistent 100 pages, and believe me, there aren't very many publications these days that can say they grew 50% in one year. Readership is up, newsstand sales are up, advertising is up, and it has not plateaued yet. Nor is the readership of EQ low-level noobs. While no magazine can keep all of the people happy all of the time, obviously enough people find something of sufficient value in an issue (e.g., the Townshend interview) that they keep coming back for more. For a deeper understanding of what the magazine is about these days, you might want to check out this thread: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/1 43567-eq-magazine.html as it addresses many of the questions surrounding EQ, and magazines in general.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to interact with y'all.

[alphajerk]

...And I still can't log on to the REP forum! I guess it doesn't matter, it's degenerated into a thread about how Alphajerk sucks, and how their forum can kick the ass of Gear Slutz, HC, etc. Interesting how other people see the world It's also interesting how much mileage you can get out of a thread because someone didn't read an article carefully!

 

man, that is so prophetic on my part. see what i mean? nice to know i still can twist their panties in a wad and i dont even have to show up there.

 

i actually read your article and it really made sense, but could also be done via object oriented automation. just clipping those phrases and raising their respective gain levels. but i totally see what you are talking about with the example... im just trying to think if that has ever been a real issue. i might get a phrase once in a while like that.

 

thats what i hate about that forum, it should be called 'whatever works [as long as you do it exactly like we do it and drink our kool-aid]' :poke:

[zeronyne]

I cannot believe that Craig had to post a reply like that to a forum made up of engineers.

[alphajerk]

honestly, i get all the magazines... and right now, EQ is definately rocking everyone else right now. mix just plain sucks, em is kinda boring, tapeop is just getting stale... i have been enjoying EQ the past few issues.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Well thanks guys, you "get" it. I was finally able to log in, and for the sake of completeness for those who bailed on the other thread when it degenerated into "normalization is gay," here's my response:

 

 

Yeah, I "get" it.

 

But just to clarify, normalization is not gay, right?