How do I normalize all the audio files used in my song and preserve regions without having to do them one by one??? I can't find the command. I need this info ASAP (like in the next half hour if possible) Thanks, Josh

> How do I normalize all the audio files used in my song and preserve > regions without having to do them one by one??? Why ? Christian -- homepage http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/home.htm

On Mar 3, 2004, at 3:46 AM, christianobermaier@... wrote: >> How do I normalize all the audio files used in my song and preserve >> regions without having to do them one by one??? > > Why ? Exactly my question Christian! The "Normalize" process is one of those "it will smooth-out/fix everything and make my mix more balanced" kind of myths. I only use "normalizing" for things like voice lectures, or staff meetings, that have varying volumes that I don't want to fool with manually, etc. Chris M.

>Chris Moore <thinkdeep@m...> wrote: > Exactly my question Christian! > > The "Normalize" process is one of those "it will smooth-out/fix > everything and make my mix more balanced" kind of myths. > > I only use "normalizing" for things like voice lectures, or staff > meetings, that have varying volumes that I don't want to fool with > manually, etc. What does "normalizing" have to do with varying volume? All it does is bring the peak DB level up to a predetermined amount, everything else in the file stays in relationship. Unless you mean normalizing to 150% of 0db in which case the peaks are truncated. (Depending on your software) I would think a brick wall limiter or compressor would give better results. howard > > Chris M.

> What does "normalizing" have to do with varying volume? Indeed, I only normalize if recording levels are so low that I can´t really view them that well. Henrik Krogh henrikkrogh@...

At 3:51 Uhr +0400 on 03.03.2004 Chris Moore wrote: > > Why ? > >Exactly my question Christian! Sometimes I am very astounded about the way some people create a feeling of unwelcomeness for new users and people who ask questions that could be in any way seen as unclear. >I only use "normalizing" for things like voice lectures, or staff >meetings, that have varying volumes that I don't want to fool with >manually, etc. this is exactly what I mean with my above: after thinking about it for just one minute, you seem to have found a legitimate reason for the question and actually are thinking of an application. What's so hard about going back to edit your message to make it sound more friendly and make it more useful to other users? I enjoy everyones input a lot and only wish that some people would realize that something they only do every once in a blue moon is an everyday chore for others ... thus some functions you may never have dreamed of using are essential to others. so please don't ignite flames just because you are in a bad mood today. and double please: flame me personally if you like, but keep the replies off the list... so...play nice! canine -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- canine_at_waf80_dot_de good night europe. http://kainiggemann.de <your name here> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Why ? > Sometimes I am very astounded about the way some people create a > feeling of unwelcomeness for new users I could have answered the question (How can i normalize all regions?) straight away with "You can't." Instead i chose to try finding out the motivation for the question, so as to propose the best of the 17 ways to deal with 'My clips are too low' *without* getting blisters on my fingers by waxing for three pages and then possibly getting no response anyway. Christian ====homepage http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/home.htm ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

> >I only use "normalizing" for things like voice lectures, or staff > >meetings, that have varying volumes that I don't want to fool with > >manually, etc. > > this is exactly what I mean with my above: after thinking about it > for just one minute, you seem to have found a legitimate reason for > the question and actually are thinking of an application. > > What's so hard about going back to edit your message to make it sound > more friendly and make it more useful to other users? I cannot speak for others but it would be my guess that this question is greeted with some hostility because the over-normalization of music is a real problem nowadays and should be shunned. Put up some songs in your sample editor and you will see a black bar: no variation in dynamics for the entire length of the song. This sucks. It is the result of marketing dweebs and insecure musicians/engineers/producers who want it as loud as possible all the time. This sounds like unlistenable crap and should be strongly discouraged. Bob Vandiver

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "bob_vandiver" <bobv@s...> wrote: > I cannot speak for others but it would be my guess that this question > is greeted with some hostility because the over-normalization of > music is a real problem nowadays and should be shunned. Put up some > songs in your sample editor and you will see a black bar: no > variation in dynamics for the entire length of the song. Normalization doesn't affect the dynamic range of a signal, there will still be X dB difference between noisefloor and loudest peaks before and after normalization. What you're referring to is the over-compression of music, and I heartily agree. The reason normalization is frowned upon is that it's generally performed at a fixed bit-depth as a destructive process - this will permanently reduce the sound quality of the audio slightly, due to resampling quantization error. Emagic do not specify the processing bit depth for the Sample Editor, but it may in fact be done at the bit depth of the original file (16- or 24-bit fixed point), which is definitely a bad thing. In any case, the Sample Editor processes (all of them) do have an audible effect, not good to my ears, most obvious when listening to the results on quieter sections like reverb decays, fade-outs etc. A bit grainy due to quantization error. Avoid, especially on 16-bit audio. Other sample editors may do a better job however. In Logic, it is far preferable to increase level by boosting the fader level and/or inserting Gainer plugins, which ensures that the increase in level is done both non-destructively and at a much more accurate 32-bit floating point resolution. The result when added up across many tracks is _clearly_ superior to normalizing all the audio. The only situation I'd batch-normalize would perhaps be if I were preparing a lot of audio for a hardware sampler or sample CD, but even then I'd want to use something that did the batch processing at a much higher resolution than the source files, probably with appropriate dither applied on reduction to the final bit depth. John Pitcairn ------------------------------------------------------------- Logic Control emulation for generic midi controllers: LC Xmu demo: http://www.opuslocus.com/lcxmu/ -------------------------------------------------------------

On ; 03 Mar 2004 21:12:42 -0000 Bob wrote >I cannot speak for others but it would be my guess that this question >is greeted with some hostility because the over-normalization of >music is a real problem nowadays and should be shunned. Put up some >songs in your sample editor and you will see a black bar: no >variation in dynamics for the entire length of the song. This sucks. >It is the result of marketing dweebs and insecure >musicians/engineers/producers who want it as loud as possible all the >time. This sounds like unlistenable crap and should be strongly >discouraged. > >Bob Vandiver Just thought i would clarify this for those new to recording etc. It is the over use of compression and limiting that causes the problem of maxed out mixes with no dynamics,not the normalizing.Normalizing just takes the loudest peak of the file to the max you set. If you want loudest then minus point 3 is a standard.The over use of the AUDIO ENERGISER can max out the file as well as over using plugs like the waves L1 ultramaximiser. This usually happens at mixdown and/or mastering . I recently finished doing the sound editing for a surf DVD that unsigned bands contributed tracks to and there were some real shockers regarding overcompression.My advice to newcomers to recording is look for an experienced recording person to master your tracks and advise you on your mixing especially if you are putting these tracks out for the buying public to hear. Yes, the problem does exist in proffesional mastering but most would rather not master as hot as the customer requests. Do a search on the net re mastering and there is plenty of info for those serious enough to educate themselvs. Chris Hallam. Recording Engineer Melbourne,Australia Ph:0409194486

On 3-mrt-04, at 22:12, bob_vandiver wrote: > over-normalization of > music is a real problem nowadays and should be shunned. Put up some > songs in your sample editor and you will see a black bar: no > variation in dynamics for the entire length of the song. This sucks. No, please people, let's agree that normalise is a function not altering relative levels in any way, just making peak-level 0dB adjusting the rest relatively. The process you're confusing it with would be known as maximising, or energizing which is more like compressing. Cheers, Arvid.

bob_vandiver wrote: > the over-normalization of > music is a real problem nowadays and should be shunned. Put up some > songs in your sample editor and you will see a black bar: no > variation in dynamics for the entire length of the song. This sucks. I´m NOT a fan of normalizing, but normalizing has nothing to do with the black bars or loss of dynamics. That´s a result of hypercompression and hyperlimiting and clipping (which normalizing does absolutely not, it shifts the "intact" dynamics to the highest level before clipping). > It is the result of marketing dweebs and insecure > musicians/engineers/producers who want it as loud as possible all the > time. This sounds like unlistenable crap and should be strongly > discouraged. I absolutely agree. Peter --- http://www.merlinsound.de

Hello All: While I was away from my computer today, we had a short-term power outage. A Logic song was open when the power went out. After the power came back, I rebooted the computer. The problem I have had since this reboot is that every time I hit "save" Logic freezes up. The only way to get control of the computer again is to shut down the computer and reboot. BTW, this problem happens with EVERY song (not just the one that was up when the power went out). So at the moment I am superscrewed (I have backups on everything, but this happens on the backups too). Any suggestions? Thanks, Dave Logic Pro 6.? (latest version) MAC G4 (OS9) 867MHz, 1.50 GB Ram

>While I was away from my computer today, we had a short-term power >outage. A Logic song was open when the power went out. After the power >came back, I rebooted the computer. The problem I have had since this >reboot is that every time I hit "save" Logic freezes up. The only way >to get control of the computer again is to shut down the computer and >reboot. BTW, this problem happens with EVERY song (not just the one >that was up when the power went out). So at the moment I am >superscrewed (I have backups on everything, but this happens on the >backups too). Any suggestions? > >Thanks, >Dave >Logic Pro 6.? (latest version) >MAC G4 (OS9) >867MHz, 1.50 GB Ram > > Just found the solution...I re-seated my PCI-324 soundcard in the back of my MAC (don't know why it worked but it did). But it works great. Dave