> From: "Jörn Nettingsmeier" <nettings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 04/12/16 10:39 > >> If you normalise the master output, it does not affect your mixing > >> balance at all. All the mysterious "mathematical function" does > >> is: 1. play the song through a "peak hold" meter. 2. look at the > >> maximum peak level, say it's minus n dB FS. 3. play the song again > >> with the master fader at plus n dB FS 4. save the result > > Something is affected nevertheless. > Sorry, I'm dropping out here. If I didn't know your posting history, > which is overall very constructive (if confused at times), I would > assume you're trolling. Thanks for the good comment although when the file is saved with hex values being changed within it as compared to when it was read, then it was a transformation. In broader terms it does not matter, but something has changed. I do not see this confusing at all, it is a fact and it was explained as part of the processing of normalization. > Bob is arguing against the practice of normalizing every track as it > comes in without thinking. Exactly. And i question it, so I will see what it is 'sans-norm' and with normalization, through time (not only once and done) as I get to know these relatively new things. > There are also very good arguments against peak normalizing a master, > namely that we should adjust for loudness, not peak level. > Another of his arguments is the accumulation of rounding error in > fixed-wordlength systems, which is very valid. But honestly, your > understanding of the whole matter seems to be several tens of dBs away > from the point where this becomes relevant. Not sure. > Unless you are willing to understand that normalizing the sum does not > change anything in your mix, continuing this discussion is pointless. The final product is not only about a mix. The output of the mix itself can then be tainted again by adjusting levels, EQ, adding (multuband) compression, tape saturation, etc... > > For now I much prefer to do all by > > craftiness, by observation and experiment and that all and every > > changes are made explicitly. And: I still believe that doing makes an engram of concepts while opening the door to experimentation, all of this within the context of discussion, exchanges. Many things are learned that way. Then there are also people who take formal courses in maths, physics, audio engineering, etc... > You should also get rid of mysteries and magical thinking, because half > of the audio industry is drooling and waiting for non-analytical > thinkers to show up so they can be ripped off, ruthlessly. Hmmmm... I only mentioned Ian Shepperd and Mike Senior. I find Mike Senior's book to have good contents for me the beginner in audio technology, and the free website he has with tons of projects that can be mixed, that people can share and discuss about, excellent (time allowing). Personally I value Ian Shepperd advice. Someone who has worked with Ozric tentacles, The Orb, Porcupine Tree, King Crimson, I will listen to. It is also a business. People have to make a living. This said, many come across as way too loud (!) on the adverting aspect, to a point that their actual value can be criticized. Especially when they start to throw 'advice' that do sound arrogantly horizon-limiting. These are easy to filter off. Like any domain, quality varies. Like any search, discrimination skills must be honed. More in the audio industry than say, insurance salesman, food and drug industries or sellers of new wars in the Middle East ? Don't know :) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
