'To Normalise Or Not To Normalise'? (That is the question!)

[Super 8]

OK, I've just started working on my first proper (home-recorded) album but need to get something in place as a means to moving forward from here on in - a 'house style' for completed, 'definitive' versions of songs that will end up on this album. As things stand I've worked up the first song to the Mastering stage. This album production is going to be an all 'in the box' job (including the Mastering bit) and my box of choice for this pet project will be the venerable Boss BR1600 .... well, two actually! (Thanks for all your help in this matter fellow songcrafter Leigh! )

I was told by a professional recording engineer/producer a while back that, for a commercial music release, you should aim for an unweighted L/R output of .... '12'. "Erm, 'twelve' what exactly?" I'm still not sure but, using a free bit of software called Audio LEQ by the Channel D company, it's pretty straightforward to arrive at a figure. You just drag your finished Mastered track into a window and it 'turbo-analyses' it and gives you 'the figure' = "SIMPLES!". (Unfortunately I can only find this FREE software gizmo available for Mac so need to go round to a mate's house to use it - if anyone knows of a PC equivalent 'I'm all ears!') 

Anyways, I've been sticking a number of recordings through it over the last few weeks to find their overall L/R figure. Neil Young and Cat Stevens are seemingly really low coming in on average between 17 to 19. Joni Mitchell faired somewhat better but nowhere near '12' and Joan Armatrading was peaking at around '15' (sounds dodgy!) The closest I could get to this mystical '12' was Liverpool band The La's track 'There She Goes' (the quintessential 'Perfect Pop Song' in my opinion!) I've finally gotten round to putting one of my tracks through this sonic blender and it came in at respectable '11.9' which is close enough for jazz methinks HOWEVER that was my BR Mastered version. I then went on to Normalise this Master and this time it came in at '10.3' ... too loud methinks? Well, it doesn't sound like it's distorting but it is a damn sight louder than say, the Neil Young songs I analysed in such a way.

So then I thought ... maybe I should try something more, erm, 'contemporary' shall we say? The only thing I had lying around on this ocassion was the new Coldplay long player and Duke Special's last album (highly recommend you check out 'The Duke' if you've not heard of him by the way - excellent stuff!) Much to my surprise both albums clocked in on the analyser with an average of '7.3' & '9.2' respectively .. "Hmm!" That's WAY 'louder' (?!) than the recommended '12' figure stated by this pro recording engineer/producer!

Now I'm not sure where to go with this! Should the definitive version of this first song I've done for my album be just the 'Mastered' version OR the 'Mastered and the Normalised' version? The secong one sounds 'a bit' louder I guess. I need to develop a house style for the album at this stage before I dive in any deeper I guess. So .... 'To Normalise or not to Normalise?' that is my question. Very interested to hear folks thoughts on this matter for music one is attempting to commercially release ("YIKES!")         

[FuzzFace]

Hi Spock.  I don't know the answer but this all sounds terribly inspiring...

[Super 8]

I have some more technical information (communnal yawn?!) The (seemingly just Mac-based!) software is called: 'AudioLEQ' by Channel D and what it does (amongst other things!) is: 'measures the unweighted L+R balance of any track you put through it in LEQ dBFS' if this means anything to anyone! Oh, and by the way, the 'magic' figure is in negative ie: '-12' not '12' as I earlier stated - what do I know eh?! To be honest I don't really understand it at all and am really just going on the advice this engineer/producer gave me ie: get your mix in the '-12 LEQ ballpark and it should be good to go level-wise for commercial broadcast'. I wouldn't normally bother with this line of questioning ordinarily but I guess it's different this time as I'm trying to release a, erm, 'proper album' I guess (as opposed to my usual out-pouring of half-baked demos!) That's the plan anyway, we'll see. 

UPDATE: I've been listening back to this first track I've mixed for my album and 'I think' I'm preferring the 'Normalised Master' over the the straight 'Mastered' one. Thing is, were I to go with this 'Normalised Master' as the definitive album take it will put this track higher than this recommended '-12 LEQ' readout meaning there could be level disparities across the album. Hmm! Curiouser and curiouser ... I don't want to release something where the listener is constantlu up and down adjusting the volume level so I'm back to my initial question here! Any thoughts greatly appreciated as I feel I'm driving blindfold where stuff like this is concerned! 

PS: Perhaps I should post this first out of the blocks album track over in 'Original Songs' for opinions - there's only so much you can say with words and, at the end of the day, it's all about the muzak! (Dn't you hate it when folks try to explain what they mean with cliched phrases like: 'At the end of the day'? Apologies!!)

[Geir]

I can recommend the podcast "The mastering show" by Ian Shepard (Mr. Sundbo pointed me in his direction a while ago)

http://themasteringshow.com/

Episode 23 deals with the mastering of a whole album:
http://themasteringshow.com/episode-23/

Here's a video that can give you some input regarding "normalising".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31zHqzjRn4c

[Mach]

Ian Shepherd has some really good video tutorials on the tech of sound.
Another guy that has some really well tutorials on sound in this area and others
is Prof. Paul Davis. He does a series on mixing in the box (with 90% of that nowdays)
and touches on these ideas along with pre-mixing suggestions about set-up,
gain staging & calibrating before you get to normalization and mastering options.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Qm6NFIY2E

[leighelse]

When I bounce the final mix I take care to keep the levels well below zero. When I master I try to get the input level (9/10) peaking at zero. Then I export the mastered track, trim start and end, and normalise it to -0.3db. Using consistent levels gives consistent results.

Different values give different results. For example, pushing the 9/10 level up a little when mastering gives a more compressed result; normalising to a lower level makes the track softer.

Although it's a cost, I think you can make a good case for paying a mastering engineer to master the completed album. But the BR1600 does the next best mastering.

[Super 8]

Cheers Geir & mach, I shall go check out your links! Looks very software/computer-based going from the graphics (I only have a crappy laptop running an older version of Audacity) but I'm sure the principles are the same. Like I say, I'll be working within the box that is a BR1600CD. I'm only planning to move to the laptop in order to convert the files to a computer format after the mastering stage. That said, laborious as it might be, I might just stay 'in the box' entirely and burn my album direct to CD from the BR1600! I'm thinking I'll go for a more artisan/cottage industry approach ie: since I'm attempting to do everything myself on the performing/recording/production front I may be as well to carry it through to the post-production stage and 'hand make' the CD sleeve then burn said album from the recorder as and when they, err, 'sell'! (ED: "Sell? You're kidding right??) Yep! I do already have THREE confirmed pre-orders - namely: my local Postie; my ex-girlfriend and ... well, I'm gonna want one for myself aren't I - "WOO!!!" I'll keep you penned. PS: Let me know if you'd like one and I'll add you to the (ever growing!) list.        

[Super 8]

When I master I try to get the input level (9/10) peaking at zero.

Thanks (again!) for your insights Leigh! This setting levels is where it all falls down for me with the BR1600 - I just don't think it's meters are anywhere near accurate enough for this final stage! There's all the Mastering Tool Kit gubbins filling the final screen but I think they missed a trick - there should be a drop down screen here showing a much larger stereo meter read-out (horizontally methinks in order to cram more get more info on the screen). As things stand (and always will as, as you'll know, this model is now long discontinued!) I personally really struggle to see where the final stereo levels are peaking (even with a magnifying glass!) Hmm ...!

[T.C. Elliott]

I have the TT Dynamic Range stand alone windows "program" that used to be free a long time ago that I check the dynamic range of the songs. I try to keep all of them consistent. I like hitting above 10 (most on my recent release are 11-12.) 

The problem with the videos (which are great) is that by "in the box" they mean in the DAW. Working in the 1600 (or other Boss box) is a bit different as you have alluded to. However, if you get a good sounding mix and get all the songs of a similar loudness or level then you've done a good job. You don't want your song massively louder or more quiet than others people will listen to on their ipod or on the computer, but the largest worry is and should be that the entire album is similar. After all, we can always turn it slightly up or down if needed.

I wish I had further advice about using your 1600 meter, but really I don't. But if you export the wav file and then put it into reaper or audacity and check the meter you can get a good idea of where you stand. Worse case scenario you can change your normalization or limiting levels and rebounce/export and try again. It's well worth the extra few minutes to get a consistent level and ultimately if you do this enough you'll get a better idea of how to use the meters on the 1600.  In fact, I did this very thing last month with 13 tracks I released on bandcamp. Rebouncing and listening is an important step.

I would also recommend printing to CD and listening on several other audio devices before making a final version. I don't do this as much as I should, but it's very helpful in dialing little details of the song in the mixing process. (Ie, if it sounds great in your headphones and home stereo but the midrange sounds like ass through your car cd player, you might be able to address an issue that you wouldn't have noticed before.

btw, if you are interested in the hard to find TT Dynamic range windows "program" (it just examines wav files and tells you the DR) then pm me. I think using the RMS in a DAW would give you a similar result, though.