Normalize tracks? Software?

[CedarSound]

Ok, maybe I "mis-spoke" when I said compression.... how about...

I don't like the way it sounds.

[Waltz Mastering]

I imagine that it's not impossible that this "RMS Normalization" would alter the waveform. Seems like it would probably use compression or limiting to achieve "RMS normalization".

Any compression or limiting would alter the wave form.

It would probably take the crest factor (difference between peak and rms) or highest rms value and normalize to that.

[chris harris]

I imagine that it's not impossible that this "RMS Normalization" would alter the waveform. Seems like it would probably use compression or limiting to achieve "RMS normalization".

Any compression or limiting would alter the wave form.

Yeah, that's what I said, right?

[thethingwiththestuff]

yeah, you're right. RMS normalization would alter signals, but most of the time people talk about normalization, they mean Peak, as I assume the OP was.

[Waltz Mastering]

I imagine that it's not impossible that this "RMS Normalization" would alter the waveform. Seems like it would probably use compression or limiting to achieve "RMS normalization".

Any compression or limiting would alter the wave form.

Yeah, that's what I said, right?

Ya, you're right, re-reading it, that's what you said.

[ashcat_lt]

I don't know about WaveLab, but I use SoundForge for normalization all the time. It has settings for Peak or RMS versions.

In SoundForge at least, RMS normalization does not change the overall waveform unless the specified RMS level causes the peaks to go over 0dbfs. That is, just like it's Peak mode, it is no different at all from the Volume process (or presumably raising the master fader before rendering). Well, it is different in that it calculates and displays for you the pre-process Peak and RMS levels, with the Volume process you have to get that info somewhere else.

It has a check box where you can "apply dynamic compression" or just let it clip. Obviously, either of these options will change the waveform.

I've never been disatisfied with just letting it do that "dynamic compression", though in my case it's usually just one or two abberant peaks which would get knocked down in this process. If it requires more, I go back to the mix.

One thing to keep in mind in this case is that whether this compression kicks in or it clips, it will leave the highest peaks at 0dbfs. Since this is usually not ideal, I set the desired RMS about a half db (or so) higher, and then Peak normalize back down to -0.5 (or so). Could just as easily volume it back down, but I get in that Normalize groove and just go...

[bannerj]

yeah, you're right. RMS normalization would alter signals, but most of the time people talk about normalization, they mean Peak, as I assume the OP was.

Yeah, I've been thinking about peak, not RMS.

And subatomic, kudos to getting set up with a shared space with Trent. I think that is what you've got going. I really wish I still lived in OKC to see all the studios develop.

Anyway, yeah, this is helpful...to learn that some programs are doing an RMS normalization instead of a peak. And it seems to me that its possible that different programs might treat this differently? Perhaps as Ashcat_it has said its different in Soundforge. I demoed Wavelab, and ran a track through its normalization and was shocked by the difference in sound. It pulled this noisy synth part way up. What made matter worse/more confusing is that I kinda liked the result.

Thus, I started this thread wondering what programs people like and why and being virtually ignorant about mastering....