12 Apr
2016
12 Apr
'16
4:02 p.m.
From: "Jörn Nettingsmeier"
<nettings(a)stackingdwarves.net>
Date: 04/12/16 08:26
> That's it. Why would 3 weeks of work on 25
tracks be thrown to a
> mathematical function that will move one fader ?
???
That still sounds like you're confused about it.
If you normalise the master output, it does not affect
your mixing
balance at all. All the mysterious "mathematical function" does is:
1. play the song through a "peak hold" meter.
2. look at the maximum peak level, say it's minus n dB FS.
3. play the song again with the master fader at plus n dB FS
4. save the result
Something is affected nevertheless.
If by "tracks", you actually mean
"songs", well then, yes, if you have
one song per session, normalizing each one individually can upset the
loudness balance from one song to the next, but I doubt you'd get that
one perfect anyway. For this kind of workflow, when switching songs
means loading another session, I would recommend to export each song,
then create a new ardour session with as many stereo tracks as your
album has songs, arrange the songs one after another, but each on an
individual track. Then you can fine-tune the relative levels with the
channel faders and even throw in some extra "mastering" processing like
EQ if the songs don't quite match yet.
I think I mentioned that. Not just now, but earlier. Comparing with commercial tracks of
the same genre. This is what I started doing. First steps. Much later on, developing a
uniform experience from a series of original pieces. I still do not see why I would throw
anything at a 'mathematical function' at this stage of learning. I might stick
with that for a long time (there's at least one 'big guy', Bob Katz, that does
not consider normalization in a good light, as can be read in a recent link posted here,
so it might not be a uniform accord). For now I much prefer to do all by craftiness, by
observation and experiment and that all and every changes are made explicitly.