On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 06:34:20AM -0700, R Parker wrote: > The best sense I can make of Normalizing is I might > want to apply it to all songs after they are mastered. That's what I understand to be its most appropriate use. > Then again I probably won't do that either because > mastering is the process of achieving appropriate > levels amongst groups of songs. Correct. The normalize program will do a good job of quickly levelling out the differences between tracks when they are badly matched, but it can't determine that you actually *want* a particular track a few dB quieter than the others for artistic reasons. > Is "rms" another method for calculating peaks? What > does the acronym stand for? Literally root-mean-square. Its significance in this context is that it relates to power, and hence arguably to audible loudness, better than peak measurements do, and better than taking a simple mean of absolute values of samples or voltage. Normalizing by the criterion of RMS level is therefore the best option for bringing different tracks to something like the same perceived loudness level, at least better than peak normalization will do. On a compressor, detecting peak or average (RMS) levels is one of those things that you tweak for best results. Occasionally, with certain types of material, it makes a difference; much of the time it doesn't matter very much. Peak detection tends to apply to limiting to protect following stages from clipping, and as with normalization RMS is more for compression consistent with audible loudness. -- Anahata anahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tel: 01638 720444 http://www.treewind.co.uk Mob: 07976 263827
