Talk:Audio normalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Stub[edit]

To me, this article doesn't appear to be a stub. It clearly explains what is actually a pretty finite and simple topic. What could be expanded is the list of related topics and the most valuable additiion now would be an illustrative graphic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.225.215 (talkcontribs) 10:14, 24 July 2006

True. Only then though would the article not be a stub. --Davidkazuhiro 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to add a reference or two before this can exit stub status. --Kvng (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Number of passes to achieve normalization[edit]

"Normalization may require two passes, depending upon the software employed. A first pass would determine the highest peak, and the second pass applies the gain to the entire recording." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willondon (talkcontribs) 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The article implies that some software can achieve normalization in one pass. I'm no expert, but I can't see how this is possible, since the one and only pass must apply gain, but the appropriate gain cannot be known until a previous pass has determined the peak amplitude.

Should this paragraph be rewritten, or removed? I suspect the original editor has been misled by software that shows only one sweep of a progress bar, rather than the typical two separate sweeps.

Willondon (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

not amplitude for loudness[edit]

Please consider this:

  • First line “the application of a constant amount of gain to an audio recording in order to bring the average or peak amplitude to a target level (the norm)”
  • Loudness normalization “the gain is changed in order to bring the average amplitude to a target level. This average can be a simple measurement of average power, such as the RMS value, or it can be a measure of human-perceived loudness”, such as that offered by ReplayGain and EBU R128.

There is some sloppiness in formulation.

  1. RMS average value is not average amplitude.
  2. While peak normalization brings the maximum absolute value of the recording to the norm, it is not clear to me whether Loudness normalization brings the EBU R 128 overall loudness level to a norm (say, -23 LUFS), or, like peak normalization, brings the maximum RMS value integrated to a reasonable timespan to a norm (say, -12 dB FS), which would be, frequency weighting aside, something like setting EBU R 128 momentary loudness. I think both exist, and they should not be treated as the same.

Loudness normalization as by EBU R 128, with true-peak level regulation, addresses TV broadcaster's needs and concerns with communication of programs between networks. Part of the research they have funded may benefit to the general public, but normalization of dynamics (Loudness range in EBU R 128), intimately connected with normalization of levels and of loudnesses, albeit useful to the broadcasting industry, may be out of this useful range.

I feel that ITU BS.1700-2, which describes precisely the recommanded program loudness evaluation for TV broadcasters, and is freely obtainable online, should appear. And it does not include loudness range (dynamics) normalization.

Keeping an eye on this article in order to enhance french version.

PolBr (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have only one word to say: Bravo PolBr. Wfplb (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Reasonable observations. You seem to have a good understanding of these topics. It is not uncommon for the lead to get out of sync from the article body. Feel free to WP:BEBOLD and bring them back into alignment. I have just added a few related articles to the See also section. You might be interested in keeping an eye on these too. --Kvng (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)