12 Apr
2016
12 Apr
'16
4:09 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:07 AM, jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
From: "Paul Davis"
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Date: 04/12/16 09:59
the reasons have already been explained. primarily dynamic range:
Imagine you just obtained a finished,
commercially produced and
mastered song.
You play it on your music system with the volume
set at 5.0. It
sounds a bit too quiet, so you turn it up to 7.0.
Did you change the mix? Did you change any aspect
of the
production process?
Hopefully it is clear that you did not.
Normalization is *EXACTLY* equivalent to this
process.
I think that by now I can see the topic :)
So, if the CD is very much in the ballpark of the commercial productions
of the same genre, then why not leave the final adjustment to the listener
anyways ?
One positive side effect of normalization is that you
get the best
signal/noise ratio for the exported target (usually 16bit). If the
loudest peak is at 0dBFS the whole [16bit] range is available for
dynamic range. If the digital peak is at -6dBFS you get one less bit
dynamic range (with integer encoding).
the ONLY downside of normalization is when it is done naively in ways that
lead to inter-sample clipping during D-A conversion. As long as this is
avoided (and it is easily avoided), there are simply no downsides.