Dynamic range of your mixes or masters

[JamieLang]

Tassy, [/quote]You lookahead limit your mixer's output.

It actually DOESN"T change a single thing you've done. Your lookahead limiter DOES LITERALLY change the content.

Peak normalize a file to -.5dbfs....then peak normalize it to -10dbfs....feel free to do this as many times as you want--but then peak normalize it to the original peak level, it will LITERALLY null to silence with the original track.

Your clipped mix will never EVER null with a mix that's not been clipped.

[sangamc]

Youlean loudness meter free version should give you what you are looking for.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tassy]

My mixes are not clipping. Normalize changes the mix, brings up RMS, decreases dynamic range. I have never mentioned lookahead. If you mean the built in limiter on the master I do not use it because it means 1DB dynamic range less.
Or we totally misunderstand each other, that is also a real possibility

[the C.L.A.]

Normalize changes the mix, brings up RMS, decreases dynamic range.

That's plain wrong! Normalize (talking about normalize on export) only changes the overall gain. Neither does it change the mix nor does it decrease dynamic range.

[JamieLang]

Tassy, you posted a the specs of your “mix” that both channels peak at the same -.3dbfs.....and has a TT measurement of DR9.

I know what lookahead limiter output looks like.

Mix DR is DR17-DR11. I mean, Ive analzed mixes (not mastered CDs) over 30 years and all different systems and artists....thats just the natural range not using lookaheads. lookaheads only have limited place in mixing. In a hurry I might apply one on the drum sub set to not regularly clip to take care of occassional tom hits that might spike out louder....tape sim will take care of some of that as they are effectively the orignal brickwall limiters. Even the much protested Metallica....has a DR10 master for the video game....which measn that the album that broke the loudness wars was STILL double digit mixes.

[Tassy]

Normalize changes the mix, brings up RMS, decreases dynamic range.

That's plain wrong! Normalize (talking about normalize on export) only changes the overall gain. Neither does it change the mix nor does it decrease dynamic range.

You are right, I am wrong if "normalize on export" in MB is doing Peak normalization, it does not change the RMS only puts the highest peak to 0 or any what is set to, as you say. Naturally zero (as the default in MB)I would not want because some -0.2-0.5 ceiling should be left depending on what compressed version it is going to be converted: mp3 etc...
If it/(or any normalizing plug or software) is doing RMS normalizatoin, it chnages the whole mix like in picture the right half normalized to RMS (in Soundforge).
I spoke about normalize as general if not specified whether peak or RMS we are talking about so these two options must be considered/checked.

[jonetsu]

FWIW, I always normalize the final master at -1dB to leave room for whatever file hosting processing there can be, eg. soundcloud, etc. OTOH, when exporting a stereo track for mastering it's well within -18dB, no normalization.


Cheers.

[the C.L.A.]

Normalize changes the mix, brings up RMS, decreases dynamic range.

That's plain wrong! Normalize (talking about normalize on export) only changes the overall gain. Neither does it change the mix nor does it decrease dynamic range.

You are right, I am wrong if "normalize on export" in MB is doing Peak normalization, it does not change the RMS only puts the highest peak to 0 or any what is set to, as you say.

And that is also wrong. If you change the overall level, RMS changes accordingly, of course.

[Tassy]

Normalize changes the mix, brings up RMS, decreases dynamic range.

That's plain wrong! Normalize (talking about normalize on export) only changes the overall gain. Neither does it change the mix nor does it decrease dynamic range.

You are right, I am wrong if "normalize on export" in MB is doing Peak normalization, it does not change the RMS only puts the highest peak to 0 or any what is set to, as you say.

And that is also wrong. If you change the overall level, RMS changes accordingly, of course.

It never crossed my brain that normalize to peak lifts only the one single higest signal to zero and leaves all the rest of the mix untouched
But really my wording was not as precize as I expec fro others. I am happy you added also that "RMS changes accordingly, of course."

---

To tell something that is not plain wrong but good is the MB normalizing algorithm
- a mix exported with a brickwall set -0.3
- the same with also the brickwall at -0.3 but also normalized to peak -0.3
and see wonder! they are exactly the same (only 0.01dB difference on the left but it is due to the analysing software not MB)
That is the reason I do not use normalize since my mixes seem normalized without it.
I know it is also wrong
-----------------------------------------------
Statistics for: Alabama Summer Day - Tassy - mix.wav
Number of Samples: 9085878
-----------------------------------------------
left right

Peak value: -0.30 dB --- -0.30 dB
Avg RMS: -10.90 dB --- -11.32 dB
DR channel: 9.84 dB --- 10.18 dB
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Statistics for: Alabama Summer Day - Tassy - mix normalized -0.3.wav
Number of Samples: 9085878
-----------------------------------------------
left right

Peak value: -0.30 dB --- -0.30 dB
Avg RMS: -10.90 dB --- -11.32 dB
DR channel: 9.85 dB --- 10.18 dB
-----------------------------------------------
I know , I know, it is clipping and wrong.... I am lookaheading of it

[jonetsu]

There are tales, from a distant past, only told in whispers behind a wall of white noise, about people who used to achieve the same effect as a normalization algorithm but by the sheer power of their audio engineering skills. Fact or fiction ? The legends are all that's left.