When copying CDs with my PC with Roxio should I "normalize (the) tracks...
- Thread starter baretta
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
House de Kris
Loud-n-Deep
If your goal is to have an exact duplicate of the source CD, then that implies you shouldn't change anything. If you changed something, it wouldn't be an exact duplicate. IOW, don't normalize.
whoaru99
Epic Member
Normalizing doesn't compress, does it?
I thought it basically looked to adjust the whole waveform equally up or down in amplitude to get to the same peak(?) level for all the normalized music, not alter the basic ratio between loud and soft for any given part.
Cadillac Kid
Addicted Member
Normalizing doesn't compress, does it?
I thought it basically looked to adjust the whole waveform equally up or down in amplitude to get to the same peak(?) level for all the normalized music, not alter the basic ratio between loud and soft for any given part.
You are correct.
baretta
Active Member
Do you mean it's reversible during playback?
Fred Sanford
Addicted Member
How so? Wouldn't you have to know the exact amount of gain or reduction applied to each specific track, and reverse the process individually per song?
je
js1138
Super Member
Reversible means it doesn't alter the quality or the dynamics. Theoretically, if you had a recording that used all 100 dB of dynamic range, normalizing would lose data.
But recordings made by digitizing vinyl or tape are not likely to have more than 60 or 70 db of usable range, and "normalizing" seldom involves a shift of more than 10 dB. More usually, around 5 dB.
I record LPs one file per side and do all editing and adjusting for the whole side. Normalizing does not change the relative loudness per track. But it does insure that the final digital files can be played in shuffle without worrying about the volume.
But recordings made by digitizing vinyl or tape are not likely to have more than 60 or 70 db of usable range, and "normalizing" seldom involves a shift of more than 10 dB. More usually, around 5 dB.
I record LPs one file per side and do all editing and adjusting for the whole side. Normalizing does not change the relative loudness per track. But it does insure that the final digital files can be played in shuffle without worrying about the volume.
It probably does NOT compress it, but I wouldn't bet my life that it doesn't. But disregarding that...Normalizing doesn't compress, does it?
I thought it basically looked to adjust the whole waveform equally up or down in amplitude to get to the same peak(?) level for all the normalized music, not alter the basic ratio between loud and soft for any given part.
Even a simple gain change can "damage" the data - the right way is to multiply each sample by the gain change constant, resulting in data with greater than 16 bits, then dither that back to 16 bits for recording to the new CD. The wrong way is to simply truncate to 16 bits. Though the difference may be subtle, it won't sound as good as the original.
To maintain the best quality it's always best to copy bit-for-bit, meaning no normalize or gain change or anything.
If you want to do any kind of gain change or processing, I'd go with rip, run an audio editor, then burn. Just about all editors do the "gain change" and stuff right - they use 32-bit floating point temporary files and write a correctly dithered 16-bit file for burning a CD-R.
baretta
Active Member
I agree. And that's what I'm trying to do when I copy my CDs.
Why would a simple multiplication change the word length? The only time I can think of would be if you exceed the maximum value and that would mean clipping no matter how you get back to 16 bits.
Looking at a simplistic, 4 bit example....we have 0101 (5) and multiply by 2 (3dB change) and get 1010 (10). Both are within the dynamic range of 4 bits so there is no clipping. Where would extra bits come from? I haven't done digital signal processing at that level for a long time so maybe I've forgotten some principal of binary math.
js1138
Super Member
Here's a look at normalizing that puts things in perspective.
http://www.hometracked.com/2008/04/20/10-myths-about-normalization/
http://www.hometracked.com/2008/04/20/10-myths-about-normalization/
terra1
Addicted Member
Go ahead and try it. Nothing like experience to see if it works for you. But I would see no reason if you are burning tracks from a single CD.
I have tried Normalizing with Nero 6. I was trying to burn 2 different CDs onto one.
One was a live CD. The live CD announcers seemed too loud even in comparison to if I played the original CD alone. I didn't care for what it did to the rest of the sound.
Didn't like it. I just copy CDs one at a time or make sure they are part of the same box set. Or at least avoid Normalization.
Trying to be objective and not show my bias. But the word crap keeps floating up. YMMV.
I have tried Normalizing with Nero 6. I was trying to burn 2 different CDs onto one.
One was a live CD. The live CD announcers seemed too loud even in comparison to if I played the original CD alone. I didn't care for what it did to the rest of the sound.
Didn't like it. I just copy CDs one at a time or make sure they are part of the same box set. Or at least avoid Normalization.
Trying to be objective and not show my bias. But the word crap keeps floating up. YMMV.
Last edited:
baretta
Active Member
Yeah I just want to copy the whole CD exactly as it is. I'm real happy with the original mix. Anyway I copied a CD twice for comparisons. One with normalization and one without. And to my ears I couldn't tell any differences. But still I want to copy without using normalization. Now if I ever want to record my own compositions etc., I may incorporate normalization. But when trying to make exact copies of my favorite CDs I'd like to keep the original mixes as they are.
Last edited:
Fred Sanford
Addicted Member
Just to be clear, do you know if you're referring to normalizing the peaks of each of these tracks, or the average levels? Also, does this program treat the entire disc as a whole (all tracks), or song by song individually?
je
js1138
Super Member
The best thing anyone can do is to ditch Roxoio and Nero, and download imgburn.
It takes a few minutes to get used to the sparse interface, but it will make perfect copies of CDs with no trouble. It will also make ISO files from CDs, which can be burned at a later time.
It's only shortcoming is the lack of an obvious one button way to make CDs. from WAV or Mp3 files. It can do it , but you have to read the instructions.
Comparing it to Roxio or Nero is like comparing driving a school bus to driving a Jaguar.
It takes a few minutes to get used to the sparse interface, but it will make perfect copies of CDs with no trouble. It will also make ISO files from CDs, which can be burned at a later time.
It's only shortcoming is the lack of an obvious one button way to make CDs. from WAV or Mp3 files. It can do it , but you have to read the instructions.
Comparing it to Roxio or Nero is like comparing driving a school bus to driving a Jaguar.
KrisM
Lunatic Member
I made a blues mix cd years ago, rockin' stuff like George Thorogood, using Nero 6 and had a similar result. All the songs were of a similar volume except one. I think it had a bit of low volume studio chatter and started off at a fairly low volume. The normalization option made it sound terrible. I forget if it mucked up any of the other songs, I haven't listened to it in years.
For the record, I use EAC to rip, and Nero to burn CDs. I change the settings in EAC to suit the needs of the CD I am copying. If it is a commercial CD that I am backing up for portable use, I use the quicker settings. If it is a master recording of an FM broadcast, I use the higher quality settings.
Similar threads
