[studiorecorder] Re: New Exciting Beta Version
- From: "ROB MEREDITH" <rmeredith@xxxxxxx>
- To: <studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:20:08 -0400
No, it doesn't make any difference. Normalize basically gets
measurements as you would with the Measurements command, than calls
ChangeVolume specifying how much of a change is required. So, it only
takes longer.
>>> neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/21/06 11:48AM >>>
Rob, I'm not sure what Daveed's previous question implied. Let's
assume
for a minute and for the sake of discussion that he was asking the
following question. If you know how many DB you want to raise the
volume, will there be any difference in the addition of unwanted
artifacts depending on whether you use volume or normalize? I don't
expect it makes any difference, but I want to clarify just to make
sure.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ROB MEREDITH
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:30 AM
To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: New Exciting Beta Version
You have two choices:
1. Use Change Volume to increase by any desired amount.
2. Just use Normalize with a level of 0dB. Remember, normalize is like
Change Volume, but it adjusts relative to the existing level. So, if
you
normalize to 0dB, you are requesting that the program figure out how
much it needs to boost the level so that the largest peak in the file
is
at 0dB, which is as loud as it can go.
Rob Meredith
>>> daveedm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/21/06 11:11AM >>>
How would you, then increase a recording by 6 DB or 12 DB? Normalize?
--Daveed--At 05:35 AM 6/21/2006, you wrote:
>Daveed:
>
>You likely don't need to use dither, and SR doesn't support it
anyway.
>If you are using a 16-bit sample size, you don't need to worry about
it.
>If you are using a 24-bit sample size and you need to go to 16 bits,
you
>may have to worry about it some day. For a news clip, I wouldn't
think
>of worrying about it.
>
>Ideally, you would never normalize. If all recordings were perfect,
>that is, the signal just touching 0dB, you would never have to
>normalize, and thus none of the problems with normalizing would
arise.
>
>In trooth, many people, including myself, normalize. Purists will
tell
>you that you are introducing noise from rounding, and all of this is
>true. But, it is so minimal, it really isn't a factor. What you don't
>want to do is continually play with the levels. For example, if you
need
>to increase a signal by 12 dB, you wouldn't want to use the Change
>Volume command 12 times, increasing by 1dB each time. Amateurs tend
to
>do things like this, and it drives me crazy. Of course, even if you
do
>something like this, you aren't likely to notice a difference.
>
>In digital audio, it is always better to rank level changes the
>following way: 1. Do nothing
>2. Increase the level
>3. Decrease the level
>
>Decreasing is always worse, because it is the easiest way to
introduce
>quantization noise. This is opposite the analog world, where we are
>always told that decreasing is better than increasing.
>
>Rob Meredith
>
> >>> daveedm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/20/06 10:51PM >>>
>I am a reporter, not a big techie! Dither, shmither! So when do I
>need to dither? I produce news stories, features and documentaries.
>I'm a bit stumped on how to apply, or even to apoply, so much of the
>heavy tech stuff. Now, I know about EQ, of course, and dynamic
>compression. I try to stay away from normalizing as much as
possible.
>I find it sqeezes the sound and creates a certain sameness--I don't
>know all the technical terms here. When is it advisable to use
>normalizing? My main engineer discourages its use.
>
>--Daveed--
>At 01:19 PM 6/20/2006, you wrote:
>
> >Neal:
> >
> >No dithering yet. It's all rounding. So, you better normalize those
> >recordings with the quiet mics, or you'll be back to where you
>started
> >after converting.
> >
> >Rob Meredith
> >
> > >>> neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/20/06 04:09PM >>>
> >Rob, thanks again for some nice, new and useful features.
> >
> >One question. Are you using any dither or noise shaping to convert
> >from 24 bit to 16 bit? I also very much like the peak meter read
> >out. Nice
> >work.
> >
> >Neal
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ROB
>MEREDITH
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:43 PM
> >To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [studiorecorder] New Exciting Beta Version
> >
> >
> >Yet another new feature graces Studio Recorder in this new beta
> >release. Well, actually two new features, but one big one.
Resampling
> >Rules! (I'll let you read the What's New file for the other
feature.)
> >
> >Rob Meredith
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
>6/20/2006
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
>6/20/2006
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
6/20/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date:
6/20/2006
Other related posts:
