Normalize or Wave Hammer Volume Maximise? VA1

naclhead schrieb am 18.01.2002 um 20:36 Uhr
What is the difference between the 2 and which should I use. I've been using Wave Hammer's Volume Maximise after I mix down and before I burn my CDs in order to bring the volume as high as possible w/o clipping. At least that's what I thought I was suppose to do. I'm using the "Limit at 6db and maximise" preset.

This does a good job at increasing overall volume, but I would expect that then each song would be a relatively consistant volume in relation to each other. But this is not the case. A couple songs are considerable (5db or so) and noticably lower in volume than the other tracks.

Now I've been reading about Normalizing. And it seems maybe this is what I should be doing. But Normalizing doesn't seem to give me the volume increase I'm looking for.

Should I be doing both? Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Todd Zimmermann
NaCL

Kommentare

Chienworks schrieb am 18.01.2002 um 21:30 Uhr
All normalize does is make sure the loudest peak in the track is at 0dB
(or whatever value you set). If most of your track is at -10 or -20dB, but
the loudest peak before normalization is at -0.5dB, then normalizing will
increase the entire track by only 0.5dB.

Wave hammer finds the louder peaks and gently reduces them to give
a smaller dynamic range before normalizing the file to bring the lower
levels up higher without distoring the peaks.

If you know what you're doing, you can use compression (dynamics) and
normalize together in place of Wave hammer, but normalize alone won't
be enough. You'll have more control if you compress and normalize, but
it takes lots of practice and a pretty good understanding of what you're
trying to achieve. Wave hammer is more automated and produces pretty
good results without you having to do a lot of experimenting and tweaking.
Motheius schrieb am 18.01.2002 um 22:14 Uhr
A wonderfull mix down application is T-Racks. This is pretty in-expensive, $299, and produces Awesome results.
Jessariah67 schrieb am 18.01.2002 um 23:22 Uhr
I've heard good things about T-Racks, but it's really nothing more than an audio plug-in chainer with eye-candy.

You can't just use a single preset across the board for wave files. If you have decent signal, and the bulk of your peaks are riding just above -6dB, then a setting of -6dB will give you a "louder" outcome than a wave file where the peaks are riding at -9 or -12. One single spike can keep the rest of the mix down. the best thing to do is open the compression plugin and preview it while you play with the controls. I personally use Sonic Timeworks Mastering Compressor, but the technique is the same. After some practice, you won't even have to listen -- you'll be able to get close just by looking at the wave file.


[r]Evolution schrieb am 19.01.2002 um 10:57 Uhr
Why do all of you guys never speak of using SOUNDFORGE? It is supposed to be a bad @$$ sound editor/mastering tool. In the same ranks as T-Racks and such.
But no matter which one of these you have/use, they will not do you any good if you do not understand the specific uses for the individual plugins. Most of them have the same effects. Whatever effect is out there - There is also a DirectX effect for it.

In this case you will need to first COMPRESS your file. This will serve to "tighten" the sound and tracks together. (This is what gives "professional/radio" songs their sound)
After COMPRESS, use WaveHammer -sparingly-. You will have to burn some CD copies at this point so you can compare them to other CD's till you get them to be about even.

You will use NORMALIZE for a very "week" wav. Like a vocal recorded without a pre-amp. This will bring it up to a workable level. Then once again, you would do the above steps. But if your wav is already at a workable level you won't need to NORMALIZE

Live, Laugh, LOVE!!!
Lamont
naclhead schrieb am 24.01.2002 um 18:24 Uhr
Are you saying to do this proceedure to each individule track (vocal, guitar, snare, kick, hi hat, etc.) before you mix?

Then after you mix do this same proceedure on the whole file? I was thinking about doing that but wondering if anyone recommended it.

Then I read at digicoms site that the more you digitally alter files i.e. change volume, compress, add effects,etc. the more resolution you lose because of dropped bits due to recalculation of the digital data which results in rounding off and truncation of bits. Does anyone have any thoughts on that. Is he right? Or is the loss of resolution basically neglegible when it comes to what you will actually hear?

Thanks,
Todd Zimmermann
NaCL
Chienworks schrieb am 24.01.2002 um 21:36 Uhr
I would only process the individual tracks that need it. If you have a
track that has too much dynamics then it might need to be processed
first. But generally the only adjustment you'll need on individual tracks
is volume, which can be done during the mixdown to the rendered
output. Normally you will only do dynamic adjustment on the final mix.
[r]Evolution schrieb am 09.02.2002 um 20:23 Uhr
DO NOT! I repeat DO NOT DO THIS TO EACH AND EVERY TRACK!!! This will take away from the "dynamics" of your recordings. Notice sometimes a singer "whispers" and sometimes he "screams". If you NORMALIZE every track, you will lose this whisper and scream. They will all be brought to the same level. YOU DO NOT WANT THAT!!!
You CAN compress each individual track. This will give your mixes seperation between the parts. EXAMPLE: A voice and horn are around the same freq's. So that they do not blend in and get lost in each other you would compress them to different specs. This will give each of them a setting or space in your mix that it can do it's thing without being disturbed by anything else.
Also try suttle 'pan' changes. This will also give your tracks room to breathe. Everytime you make a new project think of a band. As you look at a band on stage notice the Drummer is usually in the CENTER. A guitar is LEFT or RIGHT. Bass is off a little bit to LEFT or RIGHT. Always picture your project as a band on stage. Picture where the sounds should be coming from and set it up. That is why we have the Multitrack programs. This is just to give us a visual of where and what our music is doing. Sounds basic, but you must walk before your run.

Hope this helps. (I am not a professional-I'm a music major->still learning)

Lamont aka HollowPoint
VU-1 schrieb am 10.02.2002 um 08:07 Uhr
Todd Z. -

First of all - are you mixing? or mastering?

If you are mixing and intend to have it mastered somewhere else, DON'T COMPRESS THE FINAL MIX unless you just barely hit it (1, maybe 2dB gain reduction) to "glue" all the parts of the mix together. Remember, though, if you use too much glue, you'll smear the picture!!

If you are trying to mix and master it all at once by yourself, make sure you use the proper plugs in the proper places. Think analog - WHAT!?, ANALOG?? Yes, analog. By that, I mean think of your plug-ins as pieces of outboard gear. Which ones would you use for what and where would you patch them in? Don't use the Normalizer at the track level and don't use something like a Chorus on the Master buss (unless you want your entire mix to swim). Typically, Normalize is used only as the last process to a file in order to gain maximum level before clipping. I generally Normalize my mastered files to -0.01dB as the final step before opening up in CDArchitect to build the CD-R Master file. That being said, Normalize CAN also be used to increase the apparent volume of a file to a selected RMS value by using the RMS function of the 'Normalize to' fader. Start with settings of about -12.0 dB and adjust from there. You will have to set the 'If clipping occurs' (which it will) box to 'Apply dynamic compression' so you won't get any "overs". Keep in mind, though , that if you are adding alot of volume to the file, you won't like what this compression sounds like. BTW - DON'T go and waste a bunch of CD-Rs trying to match volumes with other CDs. Simply A-B your mixes with a CD on a CD player run through your mixer (if you have one). Or, you could load in a cut from a CD you want to compare to and place it on another track and mute/unmute it to do your comparison to your mix as both are playing. (You'll have to do a little bit of grouping to be able to do the muting/unmuting easily.)

I cannot speak for the Wave Hammer - I do not use SF5.0, but have stuck with 4.5. I suspect it is nothing more than a Volume Maximizer/Limiter. If that's the case, it can be set to increase the volume by a selected amount as designated by the threshold parameter and also be set to limit the max. output to a specified level.

As far as 3rd party plugs go, I have recently incorporated the PSP Vintage Warmer (www.PSPaudioware.com) into my box of mastering tools. There is absolutely no comparison between it and the SFWaveHammer (or even the Timeworks Mastering Compressor - which I also have). The PSP VW is a complex unit and will require some flight time to learn how to use it properly, but the sonic difference is amazing! Very clear, very punchy, can get very loud and handles transient peaks extremely well - no flat-tops. Download the demo and try it out - see what you think.

Lastly: what you read about altering digital audio is correct. Some plugs handle the math better than others - that's what makes them sound so good. Also, less is more. Every time you process a file, you are altering the digital information. If you have to use multiple plugs, it is best to use them within the chainer.

Hope all this helps.

Jeff Lowes
On-Track Recording