Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 24, 2007 Members Share Posted September 24, 2007 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. EQ is definitely doing really well. Interesting articles that I feel are relevant. But y'know....where have been my TapeOp issues been going? I think the mailman's reading them!!! I love TapeOp!! Recording has some good articles. Sound on Sound seems good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted September 24, 2007 Members Share Posted September 24, 2007 But just to clarify, normalization is not gay, right? We've adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about normalization. But if normalization wants to adopt any variety of alternative lifestyle, we will still love and support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 24, 2007 Members Share Posted September 24, 2007 The guy is still complaining. I realized that perhaps he's not a musician, and doesn't know the definition of the word "phrase." If you want to see my latest rant over there, it's a fun read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joel Oporto Posted September 27, 2007 Members Share Posted September 27, 2007 on just my second post ever over there since I joined them last august 2006, I already got them riled up:D I don't think they ever tried it because if you ask me, it's probably easier for them to just throw in a compressor they are familiar with and just smooth it out. (those lazy twits!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joel Oporto Posted September 27, 2007 Members Share Posted September 27, 2007 just got back from their forum and I couldn't believe tom eaton thought normalization meant fullscale!!! or some of the others thought normalization only meant RMS!!! But then tom did mention he only mixed analog and I guess that explains why he didn't know you can normalize to say -3db. And what is it with semantics of a phrase?!!! Any musician let alone a singer or declamatory speaker knows what a phrase is!!! There are no ifs and buts about that, only the artistic judgement of where to "mark" your phrases. My kudos to you craig for straightening those guys out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EccentRick Posted September 28, 2007 Members Share Posted September 28, 2007 just got back from their forum and I couldn't believe tom eaton thought normalization meant fullscale!!! or some of the others thought normalization only meant RMS!!! But then tom did mention he only mixed analog and I guess that explains why he didn't know you can normalize to say -3db. And what is it with semantics of a phrase?!!! Any musician let alone a singer or declamatory speaker knows what a phrase is!!! There are no ifs and buts about that, only the artistic judgement of where to "mark" your phrases. My kudos to you craig for straightening those guys out!!! +1, big time. Who'da thunk the term normalization could have evolved over time to have more than one relatively "ancient" definition? Hey! What shade of color is defined by the word "blue"??? Not to mention how sadly amazing it was that it took so long for so many posters in that thread to absorb the concept that what Craig was describing was essentially 'no' different than a simple analog, fader-based gain ride, complete with the internal dynamics of said scaled/normalized phrase left fully intact. Sheesh... Much ado about nothing, to say the least. Go, Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 28, 2007 Members Share Posted September 28, 2007 Not to mention how sadly amazing it was that it took so long for so many posters in that thread to absorb the concept that what Craig was describing was essentially 'no' different than a simple analog, fader-based gain ride, complete with the internal dynamics of said scaled/normalized phrase left fully intact. I'm quite there are still quite a few who don't understand it. That's okay. I don't write articles to force people to do something, I write them so that those who find what I describe useful have one more tool in their toolbag. Good them I didn't mention my micro-normalization technique for controlling rogue peaks when mastering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joel Oporto Posted September 28, 2007 Members Share Posted September 28, 2007 Been doing the phrase normalization stuff for years, albeit never to full scale, and yes I do the micro thingy too because we don't always work with celine dion or other great vocalists. I always treated it as my finger on a fader that went directly to a set peak level for each phrase. They prefer to use faders to set their automation because that's how its done old-school, and what they demand from their DAW(that it worked like their usual hardware. Well to those of us who never got to use those automatic fader mixers let alone see any one of them, I'm well satisfied with the normalization thing. It can even be used to fix 'ploxives and some other inconsistencies, where its just on very few portions in an otherwise perfect take.Its one thing to question and criticize someone for doing things a certain way, Its entirely another thing to shoot down someone with minimal investigation or research or understanding. Talk about guilty until proven innocent!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.