On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:07 AM, jonetsu <jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: "Paul Davis" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04/12/16 09:59
> Imagine you just obtained a finished, commercially produced and
> mastered song.
> You play it on your music system with the volume set at 5.0. It
> sounds a bit too quiet, so you turn it up to 7.0.
> Did you change the mix? Did you change any aspect of the
> production process?
> Hopefully it is clear that you did not.
> Normalization is *EXACTLY* equivalent to this process.
I think that by now I can see the topic :)
So, if the CD is very much in the ballpark of the commercial productions of the same genre, then why not leave the final adjustment to the listener anyways ?
the reasons have already been explained. primarily dynamic range:
> One positive side effect of normalization is that you get the best
> signal/noise ratio for the exported target (usually 16bit). If the
> loudest peak is at 0dBFS the whole [16bit] range is available for
> dynamic range. If the digital peak is at -6dBFS you get one less bit
> dynamic range (with integer encoding).
> One positive side effect of normalization is that you get the best
> signal/noise ratio for the exported target (usually 16bit). If the
> loudest peak is at 0dBFS the whole [16bit] range is available for
> dynamic range. If the digital peak is at -6dBFS you get one less bit
> dynamic range (with integer encoding).
the ONLY downside of normalization is when it is done naively in ways that lead to inter-sample clipping during D-A conversion. As long as this is avoided (and it is easily avoided), there are simply no downsides.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
