|
Post by starandchlorisse on Oct 25, 2016 14:14:28 GMT
If you have already recorded something and the level is low is it better to normalize to increase the dynamic range?
Or you should use the original level ?
Again it is nature sounds .
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Oct 25, 2016 16:29:31 GMT
It probably doesn't matter. I once recorded a guitar track through my Fender amp, but forgot to check the record level. After I played the perfect take I realized the level was around -40. This is about the same s/n as you get from a professional analog tape recorder, so I kept the take and it sounded fine. But I raised the gain on the recorded file because that was easier than trying to apply 30+ dB gain in the DAW software.
|
|
|
Post by starandchlorisse on Oct 25, 2016 17:15:55 GMT
"you raised the gain on the recorded file in the daw software - correct?
---If I do normalize it in the daw software is not simpe ? and you can safely say there will be no distortion ?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Oct 26, 2016 6:10:37 GMT
Normalization does not increase dynamic range.
Dynamic range is defined as the difference between the loudest and quietest part of a sound (non-engineer speak).
Normalization raises the entire signal so that it's peaking at a specified level - usually 0dB.
Dynamic range is increased (stretched out) by use of downward and upward expanders. It's reduced (smashed in) by downward and upward compressors. Normalization is like sticking a wire through the middle and raising it up clothesline style until the highest peak is at the ceiling - noise floor and all.
"Easier", I contend, is a matter of preference, workflow and tools at hand. In Live and Pro Tools there are clip gain functions which are very simple to use (but have value ranges of around +-24dB). There are also gain insert plugins which will do basically the same thing (again, with their own restrictions). You could also resample the file with gain applied - whether "in-place" (destructive rewrite) or bounce it to a new track or a combination of everything to get the job done.
See my other response about optimal levels. Normalization, as such, is typically not the operation you'd apply. However, in general, you do want to operate at a consistent level within the DAW environment for the sake of consistency (which itself pays off for creating dynamics and keeps you within a smaller range of expected parameters when doing processing such as sound design, mixing and mastering).
It would be helpful if you post which DAW you're using and screenshots of the waveform with your meters indicating their levels.
A picture's worth a thousand posts.
-m
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Oct 30, 2016 18:31:16 GMT
"you raised the gain on the recorded file in the daw software - correct? I identified which file was that guitar track, then opened it separately in Sound Forge and raised the gain there. The DAW program I use, SONAR, does have a wave file editor. But I never use it because I'm so familiar with Sound Forge, and Sound Forge is much more powerful. Not that raising the gain needs any fancy tools!
|
|
|
Post by rock on Oct 30, 2016 22:16:18 GMT
I've had the same problem with tracks that are recorded to low to be mixed with other tracks recorded properly at a reasonable level. In Reaper, there is a normalize function and it's very useful for these kinds of mistakes of oversights. Like Hexspa said, normalizing a track just brings the level up. As far as I can guess, it does this by mathematically processing each sample on your track proportionally so it sounds exactly the same, just at a louder, normalized level.
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Oct 31, 2016 18:28:41 GMT
If you guys don't know, using pink noise to set initial levels is interesting and useful.
You play a pink noise file on a track peaking at around -10dB (I forget the exact level) and gain stage the clips of your individual tracks (or use a gain insert) to bring the sound's level up to where you can barely hear it over the pink noise. You leave the faders at unity (or -6dB or so for wiggle room). From there you make fine adjustments then proceed with mixing.
The reasoning is that the spectral curve of well-mixed music tends to resemble that of pink noise. It's called pink noise mixing. Just one way of doing things.
-m
|
|
|
Post by rock on Oct 31, 2016 21:33:02 GMT
Thanks for the pink noise tip but that sounds like too much work:( What I have been doing is to first arm the track so the DAW track meter is reading the input level. Then I adjust the input level using the physical preamp level knob. (I'm using the Tascam US 16x08, it has controls for the first 10 inputs, the last 6 don't have control knobs so I control those levels from the input source like the keyboard mixer etc.)
I shoot for an initial level of -18 or -20 peaks below F.S. (full scale i.e. 0dB). That works out well since everyone usually plays louder when we actually record. I'm usually recording my band and we typically track all instruments to get as much down on the initial tracking so sometimes I miss something and that's how I end up screwing up the levels. I don't always need it but normalization works wonders for me if levels are recorded too low.
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Nov 1, 2016 12:55:05 GMT
It is a lot of work. It's at least an option if you receive a recording with too much or irrelevant level variance in the multitrack.
I think it's worth doing at least once to hear the kind of result you get. It's very interesting and gives you a great place from where to start implementing subtractive EQ.
-18 to -20dBFS is the ideal level if you'll be interfacing with analog gear. Of course that much headroom is great. Have you looked into the K-System?
It's funny - I rarely use normalization.
-m
|
|
|
Post by rock on Nov 1, 2016 19:55:28 GMT
Thanks, I'll looking to using those ideas. I don't use normalization that much either...just when I screw up the levels. Levels are only ONE place where I make mistakes, there are many other opportunities for screw-ups Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Nov 2, 2016 10:25:00 GMT
That's why DAW stands for Disaster Always Waiting.
|
|