Do you normalize your DVD audio?

[archcommus]

Just curious if you use the "normalize" option in your DVD audio decoder settings. I do because it creates MUCH fuller (and louder) audio at any volume level. But I'm not really sure what it does.

Your experiences?

 

[eplebnista]

Do you normalize your DVD audio?

Yes. Not sure if it makes much of a difference though.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Would this be equivalent to a midnight mode or dynamic range compression setting?

If so, no

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Would this be equivalent to a midnight mode or dynamic range compression setting?

If so, no

I don't really know. I just know that without it, I'm disappointed with how little pretty much every speaker is used except for center, especially the rears. I seem to get a volume level that seems more correct and just generally fuller out of every speaker, very noticeably with the rears for ambient noises, with it enabled.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Would this be equivalent to a midnight mode or dynamic range compression setting?

If so, no

I don't really know. I just know that without it, I'm disappointed with how little pretty much every speaker is used except for center, especially the rears. I seem to get a volume level that seems more correct and just generally fuller out of every speaker, very noticeably with the rears for ambient noises, with it enabled.

Do you have trim levels calibrated for all the speakers?

 

[jpeyton]

Nope.

 

[thomsbrain]

absolutely not. you are getting the correct audio signal with it off. with it on, it basically boosts the volume, then lowers the volume during loud parts. but this process creates distortion and reduces the subjective realism of the audio track. you lose impact and you lose clarity.

as any audiophile will tell you: if it's not loud enough, TURN IT UP. leave the compression alone. that said, if you don't care about quality and you like it turned on, you might as well just leave it on and continue to be happy.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Would this be equivalent to a midnight mode or dynamic range compression setting?

If so, no

That would be a compressor not a normalizer. Compression is bad, normalizing is fine. When a file is normalized, it gets peak analyzed and the absolute highest peak is brought to the requested normalize level, typically 0dB. If the peak is much below 0dB (a quiet file), the overall volume will be louder without destroying (compressing) dynamic range.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Would this be equivalent to a midnight mode or dynamic range compression setting?

If so, no

That would be a compressor not a normalizer. Compression is bad, normalizing is fine. When a file is normalized, it gets peak analyzed and the absolute highest peak is brought to the requested normalize level, typically 0dB. If the peak is much below 0dB (a quiet file), the overall volume will be louder without destroying (compressing) dynamic range.

Normalizing aka peak limiting and compressing are all different descriptions of the same function, (gain reduction) just with different parameters (ratio and attack/duration/release times).
compressor ratios are typically 1:1 to 5:1, limiter ratios are 6:1 and greater, compressor attack and release times are generally slower than limiters, although in modern devices, they are infintley adjustable and not simply a switch selecting set times.

The only time I use anything that further affects the dynamics is when I am combining material from different sources. With DVD and CD's relative wide dynamic range any disparity between sources can be really noticeable. This will cause people to get up and adjust the volume.
A good mastering engineer will reduce these disparities between tracks within a CD, so as to reduce the need for the end user to use these functions as found on consumer gear.

The MIDNIGHT LisTENING and LOUDNESS modes are really more of a low frequency emphasis to compensate for the ears reduced perception of low frequencies at reducedvolume levels, as described by Fletcher and Munson of BELL Labs Fame.

Sure, a normalized tracks sounds louder, because there is less difference between the lowest level and the highest level, thus the perception is of an average that is "louder".

In musical terms , it's as if there is no pianissimo at all, and every dynamic marking is mezzo forte.


< worked with a little start up called SUMMIT AUDIO as a beta testing engineer in the 80's as he developed his now famous tube limiter.

 

[pennylane]

No way. Proper calibration is the way to go.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft


Sure, a normalized tracks sounds louder, because there is less difference between the lowest level and the highest level, thus the perception is of an average that is "louder".

A normalized track will NOT sound louder IF the peak is already at 0dB.

If it does, you are compressing it.

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
A good mastering engineer will reduce these disparities between tracks within a CD, so as to reduce the need for the end user to use these functions as found on consumer gear.

It's fine to do that with studio performances - obviously a live concert with no gaps cannot be done.

Too bad the high percentile of today's music is totally torched. Text

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Would this be equivalent to a midnight mode or dynamic range compression setting?

If so, no

I don't really know. I just know that without it, I'm disappointed with how little pretty much every speaker is used except for center, especially the rears. I seem to get a volume level that seems more correct and just generally fuller out of every speaker, very noticeably with the rears for ambient noises, with it enabled.

Do you have trim levels calibrated for all the speakers?

95% of all systems I have serviced are not level calibrated.
We can assume , with reasonable safety, that his are not calibrated as well.
This one little job put$ The $$ in mah belly! </ Fat Scottish Guy>

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: AlienCraft


Sure, a normalized tracks sounds louder, because there is less difference between the lowest level and the highest level, thus the perception is of an average that is "louder".

A normalized track will NOT sound louder IF the peak is already at 0dB.

If it does, you are compressing it.

I am speaking of a track compared to itself. And a "normalize" function as found in some consumer electronic devices/ software aka the one button function.

If you really want to split hairs, it would be possible to REDUCE level in a normalize function, given access to those parameters.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

I am speaking of a track compared to itself. And a "normalize" function as found in some consumer electronic devices/ software aka the one button function.

If you really want to split hairs, it would be possible to REDUCE level in a normalize function, given access to those parameters.

We don't know what the OP (software wise) is using so it's hard to say. Sure it's possible to expand and enhance impact as well but that gets into another discussion altogether.

Usually when using a "ripper" to extract audio from a disc, the normalize function just goes with the peak level on each track. This is quite useful on volumes named "greatest hits", for example.

DVD's OTOH, typically have wider dynamic range and sound quiet for that very reason.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

We don't know what the OP (software wise) is using so it's hard to say. Sure it's possible to expand and enhance impact as well but that gets into another discussion altogether.

Usually when using a "ripper" to extract audio from a disc, the normalize function just goes with the peak level on each track. This is quite useful on volumes named "greatest hits", for example.

DVD's OTOH, typically have wider dynamic range and sound quiet for that very reason.

Agreed, and it 's worth mentioning that the term "normalize" is a consumer term proliferated by the ever growing use of rippers to make mix CD's.
The closest pro audio gets to a "normalizer" is the multi band processors used by radio stations to increase their average signal level in order to maximize RF output at the antenna and insure against overmodulation, which the FCC will fine them for. This is why some radio stations sound louder than others. TOO much of this results in a mash of noise with very little meter deflection overall.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Agreed, and it 's worth mentioning that the term "normalize" is a consumer term proliferated by the ever growing use of rippers to make mix CD's.
The closest pro audio gets to a "normalizer" is the multi band frequency compressors used by radio stations to increase their average signal level in order to maximize RF output at the antenna. This is why some radio stations sound louder than others, or at least used to, before everything went digital and got squashed into a mash of noise with very little meter deflection overall.

Broadcasting is VERY restricted though to prevent harmful interference so loudness pays - especially in advertising. A reverse duck on TV's for adverts is great! They mash those things all the way to the wall - very annoying. One of the reasons why I hate the telly.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Broadcasting is VERY restricted though to prevent harmful interference so loudness pays - especially in advertising. A reverse duck on TV's for adverts is great! They mash those things all the way to the wall - very annoying. One of the reasons why I hate the telly.

[/quote]
see edited text above

< knows a bit less than some around here, but has forgotten quite a bit.

 

[archcommus]

I am using ffdshow's audio decoder.

I guess I am losing a bit of "range," but I can't argue with the increased "fullness" of the sound. It's not just louder but sounds and feels more correct. If I left normalization off, and turned it up loud enough so ambient sounds were where I wanted them, then voices over center channel and some other front speaker sounds would be too loud.

I probably don't have any trim levels calibrated for my speakers, considering I don't know what that is.

This isn't some involved home theater or anything like that, just a set of Z-5500's hooked up to my computer. My speaker placement is okay, not perfect, not awful.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: archcommus
I am using ffdshow's audio decoder.

I guess I am losing a bit of "range," but I can't argue with the increased "fullness" of the sound. It's not just louder but sounds and feels more correct. If I left normalization off, and turned it up loud enough so ambient sounds were where I wanted them, then voices over center channel and some other front speaker sounds would be too loud.

I probably don't have any trim levels calibrated for my speakers, considering I don't know what that is.

This isn't some involved home theater or anything like that, just a set of Z-5500's hooked up to my computer. My speaker placement is okay, not perfect, not awful.

The rears are probably too loud in relation to the LCR fronts levels.
An HT calibration disc (partsexpress.com) and an SPL meter (radio shack) and a few minutes of your time will allow you to tweak the levels to the correct range.
THEN, you won't have to go for the Lowest Common Denominator type of fix.

Correct settings , FTW.

 

[archcommus]

Maybe I should try increasing gain instead within ffdshow and then turning off normalize? I'm trying to avoid having to turn my speakers up to 80% volume for a DVD here.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Maybe I should try increasing gain instead within ffdshow and then turning off normalize? I'm trying to avoid having to turn my speakers up to 80% volume for a DVD here.

If there is a menu to access the volumes for the individual speakers, you would do well to access them with a disc that will give the same relative signal to each in turn and get the levels a little more in line and turn the normalize OFF.
ONLY then will you actually be able to make a reasonable idea as to what it is you're listening to.
believe when I say getting the center channel up and the rears down is more often than not, the only real adjustment I make when I voice a system / room.

oh, and getting the LFE / Sub system in line with the overall system level.

BTW, music sub levels can be VERY different beasts than movie levels.
If the system is multi use, I will mark the panel on the sub to make it easy to reset should someone need to adjust it for a CD.

 

[archcommus]

The system is multi-use but I'm not an extreme audiophile here. The room is small, like 9x9 (bedroom), and I'm happy with most settings, as long as it's decoding properly and sounds good. I tried turning off normalization, increasing the decoder's volume to 200% so I don't have to increase my speakers to near max, and then turned my speakers up slightly compared to with normalization on, and it actually sounded just as loud and full as I thought it did with normalization on, and perhaps even had a better distinct difference between highs and lows. I'm sure the difference is small, and I really could just be imagining it, but I think I'll leave it with the increased volume and normalization off for the best range/quality possible.

Thanks guys.

 

[AlienCraft]

there you go.
If you think you're imagining something when trying to critically listen, remove as much distraction as you can, and try as wide a selection as you have Classical then HipHop then rockThen a movie soundtrack and see if it still does "it", repeatedly. Whatever "it" might be.
Also a Radio Shack SPL meter is handy tool for quantifying something as slippery as "Loud", "soft" or even the dreaded "too LOud".


< Once twiddled knobs for an opener for a little band known as MOTORHEAD.
I know from Too loud.