Thank you Rob: my brain fog on this has lifted some now.
You are saying that normalizing alone does not amplify the subtleties
of some nature recordings enough to get the bit saturation you
desire. And this is because even if you normalized to nearly zero,
the "transient" or anomalous peaks in the waveform exceed the range
of the important stuff enough to hold the whole thing down. Your
preferred solution is to edit those peaks, and also apply EQ and
amplify it all in a single digital generation when making your
submaster.
Sounds good to me, though I'm not sure if I can do all that in only
one generation using Audition alone. Normally, I open my source
16/44.1 file, select the section I want to use, save that as 32/44.1
and go on with editing without thinking much about how many digital
generations have passed. Feels like I'll be in this "lot to learn"
phase forever - though that's what makes this hobby interesting,
isn't it.
-John Hartog
--- In Rob Danielson <>
wrote:
>
> Hi John--
> Sorry about any confusion created. I use volume automation to
reduce
> the peaks that would be inordinately loud _at the same time_ I EQ
and
> boost volume.
>
> To use normalization in the context of mixing assumes that loudest
> transient peak-- as your recorder created it-- is _ideal_ in terms
of
> relative volume. My experience is that that birds and amphibians
> don't happen to perch at perfect distances and the insects don't
> respect my "no fly mic zone" etc. Using the loudest peak to
establish
> overall track volume in a mix often translates into middle-ground
and
> background subtleties that folks can't hear unless they're using
> headphones.
>
> The reverse is true, of course. If one only wants folks to concern
> themselves with the foreground sounds and there's adequate
separation
> in the original field recording, normalization is a quick way to
> greatly increase volume without creating over-modulation.
>
> Why not just do a quick normalization and follow that with
selective
> gain reduction etc and other measures? You can, and making further
> changes to a file that has been "bumped-up" to 24 bits and
normalized
> at the same time seems to help preserve quality. I try to plan for
a
> minimum number of digital generations that involve processing.
> There's a slight but pesky difference between real-time playback
with
> EQ plugs and playback after the EQ from the plug has been digitally
> written. So, I usually equalize and do critical volume automation
> adjustments at the same time that I create the 24 bit "Submaster"
> (from a 16 bit or 24 bit field recording). I boost gain with my EQ
> plugs and mixer settings making sure that the mix peak does not
> exceed -.3dB. Its common for quite a few events to hover around
the
> peak. Does this address your question? If not, let me know. Rob D.
>
>
> At 8:43 PM +0000 8/2/06, John Hartog wrote:
> >Hi rob,
> >
> >I've been pondering your statement but still having difficulty
> >understanding the difference between "normalizing" and "increasing
> >the gain" as you explained. I was thinking normalizing meant
> >increasing the gain to a determined level below 0. Could you (or
> >someone else) explain the difference a little further?
> >
> >Much appreciated,
> >John Hartog
> >
> >> I rarely use the "normalize" function. I tame the transient
peaks
> >> with volume automation and wave form editing and then increase
the
> >> gain at the same time I apply EQ to obtain a fully saturated 24
bit
> >> submaster. This seems to help preserve more "body" or overall
tonal
> >> balance and more spatial clues where normalizing (especially
with
> >low
> >> saturated recordings) tends to make the transients harsher while
> >> suppressing the lower mid range. How else could we be sensing
that
> >> one of the animals is coming from "behind" were it not for cues
> >from
> >> reflections? To get a twig click or sniff recorded at 2am a
remote
> >> woodland to be heard and play "naturally" in a living room with
> >> 35-40dB ambient background sound is, er,.. well,.. fun! Rob D.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Microphones are not ears,
> >Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >A listening room is not nature."
> >Klas Strandberg
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rob Danielson
> Peck School of the Arts
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
>
|