Normalize

[giant ll]

22 hours ago, Glenn Stanton said:

i use the built-in gain control on the audio track. and for each track i set the volume slider to -6 as my starting point, then set the gain to roughly have the signal peak at -12 to -6 depending on the instrument, the frequency band it occupies, and it's role. these feed my busses which are by default set to -3. in general, if i'm careful, my non-limited master ends up around 0db maybe +1 (yellow). 

then i add in my master eq and limiter/maximizer (typically Izotope Ozone 11 EQ + Maximizer) set to -1db peak, and in my Izotope Insight, starting at -16 LUFS without vocals, and then around -14LUFS with vocals, and integrated LUFS around -14.5 to -14. depending on the song i may go to -12 or for something softer -16.

one of the first tools a mastering engineer reaches for? their ears. second, the volume knob. oddly enough, if it's not loud enough, they turn up the volume control🙂

after that, then they may reach for the other tools -- EQ, dynamics, limiting etc to shape it.

Yes. Something are a little bit technical, but at the moment my recording is going much better.  Thanks very much to all. I've downloaded the Ozone 11 EQ from NAtive Instrument. I will learn to use it in next days. The commands.

Just one question: I have to add in master, Eq the Ozone 11 EQ as limiter, like this?

Now i'm just trying to apply this to the master track level because i've never used it. I had this results. The values are similar to this in all song.

[Glenn Stanton]

EQ = EQ, Limiter (maximizer) = Limter 🙂 

the master buss EQ would be to do some overall gentle tweaks - e.g. a bit more high, a bit dip on low mids (usually some mud there), and a bit of LF boost (all 1-2db but could be more or less).

the master buss Maximizer (limiter) would be to set your peak limits and to overall increase the volume (and there are other features there as well for setting the algorithm, upward compression, clipping, transients, stereo independence, mono mode, codec preview, and dithering.

[giant ll]

15 hours ago, Glenn Stanton said:

EQ = EQ, Limiter (maximizer) = Limter 🙂 

the master buss EQ would be to do some overall gentle tweaks - e.g. a bit more high, a bit dip on low mids (usually some mud there), and a bit of LF boost (all 1-2db but could be more or less).

the master buss Maximizer (limiter) would be to set your peak limits and to overall increase the volume (and there are other features there as well for setting the algorithm, upward compression, clipping, transients, stereo independence, mono mode, codec preview, and dithering.

As limiter i'm using this.

 

 

 

Edited August 11 by giant ll
mistake

[Alper Karamahmutoglu]

On 8/9/2024 at 10:14 PM, giant ll said:

Thank you very much, the plugin is really useful. I've just downloaded and i'm trying this. Just one question: i've tried to use -13db withouth effect, about -6db with effect. I've saved the old version, recorded again all the song in another file and tryed this. The sound is really clean.. but i would need a little bit more powerful. I had to put the volume fo TH5 amp to 5. Before was about 9! Is not now too thin the wave? Probable you were meaning for clean guitar, but an overdrive fusion guitar i would need a little bit more high level? This is an example. I'm just curious because it's the first day that i'm trying to use this plugin. So could be that i didn't understand something. I'll analyze it better in next days.

-6 db is to make a headroom for the probable Fx that would be needed during mixing or mastering processes, it is not related with the plugin level itself, the distortion or overdrive level would be leveled up to the necessity, but only one important thing is that clipping should be avoided. These are the processes required for the level adjustment of each channel, it does not matter at this stage whether they are slightly below for the level of hearing or if they appear graphically thin. After these processes are successfully completed for each channel, the mixing phase comes first and then the mastering stage. Some people want to complete mastering with the mix in one step, in this case, taking into account the platform on which the finished song level will be broadcast, the levels are performed with the help of "Limiter, Maximizer" such as -0,1 db. or -1 db. and 14-18 LUFS etc.  Personally, I prefer the mixing first and then the mastering separately. When mixing the song, to make a headroom for EQ-Compressor-Saturation-Dynamic EQ-Reverb-Limiter-Maximizer, which is likely to be used in mastering respectively, the volume should not exceed -6 db . I have also been using Izotope Ozone, which is recommended by other members, as a plug-in in the Steinberg Wavelab environment. 

Edited August 11 by Alper Karamahmutoglu

[giant ll]

52 minutes ago, Alper Karamahmutoglu said:

-6 db is to make a headroom for the probable Fx that would be needed during mixing or mastering processes, it is not related with the plugin itself level, the distortion or overdrive level would be leveled up to the necessity, but only one important thing is that clipping should be avoided.

I know. But when i had to adjust the limit of the track, using the app you told me to use, i had to put the level of TH5 down, to avoid that the headroom for the fx exceed over that value. That's why i talked about the level of TH5 amp. It influences the level of the single track and if it exceed, the result go out. I'm sorry if my english it's not perfect, this is a bit technical subject and sometime i can be misanderstood. It's  connected only in that sense.

[giant ll]

1 hour ago, Alper Karamahmutoglu said:

 These are the processes required for the level adjustment of each channel, it does not matter at this stage whether they are slightly below for the level of hearing or if they appear graphically thin. After these processes are successfully completed for each channel, the mixing phase comes first and then the mastering stage.

Ok. That was an old message that 've sent you. Now i have a pretty good final level, for i homemade record, made by a not expert person. Does not matter if they are graphically thin. It was the thing that i would like to obtain, slowly it's going better.

[giant ll]

1 hour ago, Alper Karamahmutoglu said:

 Some people want to complete mastering with the mix in one step, in this case, taking into account the platform on which the finished song level will be broadcast, the levels are performed with the help of "Limiter, Maximizer" such as -0,1 db. or -1 db. and 14-18 LUFS etc.  Personally, I prefer the mixing first and then the mastering separately. When mixing the song, to make a headroom for EQ-Compressor-Saturation-Dynamic EQ-Reverb-Limiter-Maximizer, which is likely to be used in mastering respectively, the volume should not exceed -6 db . I have also been using Izotope Ozone, which is recommended by other members, as a plug-in in the Steinberg Wavelab environment. 

It is a new part of working for me because i'm obviously not expert in mastering. LUFS is a new thing that i didn't investigate enough. To be honest. I try to mix first and master separately. Anyway.. i'm using lot my ear at the moment. I like? ok go on.. i don't like? stop and study what to do. It is a starting work on this song but i could try to learn it better in future recordings. I record songs really often. The results it's for some Youtube videos, not strictly for musical value used in commerce, so i would try to stay "near" the values raccomended, but if a result go a little bit out.. i listen anyway if the musical result is sufficient or really poor. I'm starting on this.

[giant ll]

23 minutes ago, giant ll said:

It is a new part of working for me because i'm obviously not expert in mastering. LUFS is a new thing that i didn't investigate enough. To be honest. I try to mix first and master separately. Anyway.. i'm using lot my ear at the moment. I like? ok go on.. i don't like? stop and study what to do. It is a starting work on this song but i could try to learn it better in future recordings. I record songs really often. The results it's for some Youtube videos, not strictly for musical value used in commerce, so i would try to stay "near" the values raccomended, but if a result go a little bit out.. i listen anyway if the musical result is sufficient or really poor. I'm starting on this.

About LUFS for example: before was higher the value.. now i changed some settings and it should be more near the -14 raccomended value. I'm but how i said... i'm new subject for me.

[giant ll]

On 8/11/2024 at 5:43 PM, giant ll said:

I know. But when i had to adjust the limit of the track, using the app you told me to use, i had to put the level of TH5 down, to avoid that the headroom for the fx exceed over that value. That's why i talked about the level of TH5 amp. It influences the level of the single track and if it exceed, the result go out. I'm sorry if my english it's not perfect, this is a bit technical subject and sometime i can be misanderstood. It's  connected only in that sense.

I quote myself just to continue: if anybody make me the question: if TH5 could have skipped the effect of normalization command? because is an amp and normalization had no effect for this?

Answer:It wasn't like this. It wasn't the problem. Normalization command, applied in the way that i've explained, exactly following one Youtube video, work to the "original" track. Modify directly the original track. Mathematically change a  part of the track, if the range selected say them to make this.

In that case, simply: "normalization" command didn't have any effect to the original track. This happened.

What happened?

I used in a first moment -10db parameters. The original track was so thin itself that every try to change on the wave form, working on that range, didn't have effect. Didn't touch the wave form!  Normalization "command" was my first question. I mean the "effect of Cakewalk".

Process - Apply Effect - Normalize.

When i tried to "normalize", with that effect, with a "stronger" level,  normalizaton "command" worked perfectly.

So... it's closed that part of discussion.   We were taslking about the "effect" normalization, included in Cakewalk. In the higher part of the screen.

After we talked more in general. Limiter, apps, EQ etc..

Edited August 13 by giant ll
explain better

[giant ll]

I mean all the tracks "thin", in my projest,  except the 1st track that is "bigger". The first track is the only wich  with the "command" normalize, worked, also with -10db level. Everybody can try to use that effect, with that setting, with a so thin track, will see that have no effect to the wave form, for obvious reason: don't touch the wave! When i talked about "normalizing", thinking that we are in a Cakewalk forum and it is an effect of Cakewalk, used for some different reason, i thought that would be not misanderstanding.

Now i've written this to divide the first discussion: "normalize effect" : Process - Apply Effect - Normalize.

and the second discussion: mastering in general app.. etcc... they are connected but not the same.

Edited August 11 by giant ll

[giant ll]

I've answered to my starting question. The range where i was working in, with the effect, didn't touch the wave form. That was the reason of the "apparent" problem. I don't want make confusion.

 

Another separate discussion but connected would be: why the tracks were so thin?

And i should analize the "source" of sound. I've recorded with an electric guitar, Stratocaster, directly connected in the guitar input of an Evo 4 Soundcard. This is the first time that i make this experiment. The sound is nice..  and so .. with mastering and mixing(putting up the volume of single tracks also) i've reached a good volume. The same.

The fact is that: with acoustic guitar, connected directly on this input i had used, i have a much a bigger signal. With electric but with Vg 88 connected there also.

Now i have to investigate why with this configuration i have a so weak signal. What can i do(if i can). (i mean "source" signal), not in the software.I

I know that i can use apps and have an high volume the same..  etc but it's not the same thing. Asking this, is really important for me, because the "source" wich i work with depends on this . I told this just to complete because was really correlated with the final result. Obviously it's not a "cakewalk" subject, so.. i don't want to go "offtopic".

Edited August 11 by giant ll

[Glenn Stanton]

you can use ctrl +alt + mouse wheel to enlarge or shrink the waveform image.

then enlarged

 

[giant ll]

2 hours ago, Glenn Stanton said:

you can use ctrl +alt + mouse wheel to enlarge or shrink the waveform image.

then enlarged

 

Nothing change. If you use ctrl +alt + mouse wheel you change only the "view" of the track, not the large in db of the track. You change also the scale how you can see in the left part from the wave form. I was talking about the second.

How you can see in this photo, track 9 enlarged, the -10 range where this effect(who use this effect use similar values often) is out from the wave form.

Edited August 12 by giant ll

[mettelus]

Another thing to keep in mind is the dB level of that wave form is showing you the input into the FX on that track, not the output level of the FX. If you want to see the wave form of the FX output you would need to Bounce to Tracks (using a new track is highly recommended, so you can see it, then delete it without worry about the original track being affected). If you do a bounce to tracks either the original or the bounce must be muted, or you will insert a +3dB gain across the board from playing duplicate tracks.

Another tip (similar to normalizing, but often more surgical), is you can CTRL-Left mouse button drag up/down on a clip wave form ("clip gain") to raise/lower the dB. This only works on the clip being hovered over (regardless if it is selected or not), but has the advantage that it redraws the waveform in real time (very nice feature) and shows you the dB change to the original (left) and the dB change you are making actively (right) in that pop up as you work.

[giant ll]

4 hours ago, mettelus said:

Another thing to keep in mind is the dB level of that wave form is showing you the input into the FX on that track, not the output level of the FX. If you want to see the wave form of the FX output you would need to Bounce to Tracks (using a new track is highly recommended, so you can see it, then delete it without worry about the original track being affected). If you do a bounce to tracks either the original or the bounce must be muted, or you will insert a +3dB gain across the board from playing duplicate tracks.

 

I've never told that the dB level of that wave form is showing the output level of the fx.  Putting words in the mouth of everybody that he didn't tell, i think it's not a good game. Also the last post told me  "If you use ctrl +alt + mouse wheel" but i wasn't talking about the view of the track but the  large in db. The last post didn't understand what i was talking about and has taken a line.

I told that  i had tried to apply that effect to the  track. I told the characteristic of that track. I told just an obviuos thing: the effect didn't make any change because the width in Db of the "source" track, was smaller and the wave didn't reach the range where that effect was set to work. The wave didn't reach the range where the effect was set to "modify" the track. So the track remain the same... I told only this.

I told this to make other people know that my first question had an answer. The effect is called "normalize", I was not talking about "normalize" in general. The effect, in the tip that i was using, is applied in every "original" track.

Who don't use this effect,.. i have the doubt that can misanderstand what i was talking about. Some said 2000 interesting thing..  i thanks so much to all for this.. but my sentence was "specific". I used the last comment to clarify. I cannot communicate if we don't understand before.

I think there's  a problem in communication in us, i will stop here. I can't delete the post, but i don't want continue in that way, sorry.

 

Anyway thank you to all for all the informations.

Edited August 13 by giant ll

[giant ll]

Every answer to my exact words.. would be welcome.  Expecially to my  last comment because i used it to clarify. Obvioulsy not  the old comments. The problem is when the answers are related to words that i've never told.  I usually quote the exact words of the user, when i answer to anybody.   Example i quote myself:

 

"I've told just an obviuos thing: the "normalize" effect didn't make any change because the width in Db of the "source" track was so small that didn't reach the range where that effect was set to work. Didn't reach the range where the effect was set to modify the original wave"

These are my words.

I answer to myself; ok.. so that effect didn't modify the track. If a person  watch the video in Youtube dedicated to this effect, how this effect work, how this effect modify the original track, would understand in one minute what i'm talking about.

 

If any word that i use it's not clear, my english is not perfect, one person can ask: what do you mean exactly when you say this?

I can  Answer: i mean that it didn't "reach" the range. For example. I've sent the picture to clarify better.

Bombing with information not related to my words make impossible communicate.  I know that you are expert.. I'm totally new. If we talk we should try to understand what the other person is telling. We cannot communicate. I think should be better to stop. Thanks anyway to everybody for your help. It has been really useful.

 

 

 

Edited August 13 by giant ll