I know this might sound like a retarded question and I appologize in advance if what I'm asking doesn't make any sense.

When I'm mixing 2 tracks, "sometimes" one track is louder than the other. I know tracks all have their own volume and yes they are both high quality .wav files bit just wanted to ask the question. And yes the trim is at the same on both. haha

I know before I could change the power of what came out of my mixer by turning a little screw on the back of the unit. For peace of mind I just wanted to make sure this can't be done on the back of the MK3's. I don't see anything to increase the volume coming out of the units but thought I'd ask this stupid question regardless.

Many thanks,
C

No, the player does not "auto-normalize". Tracks are recorded at different levels and that's exactly what the trim knobs are for on the mixer. As you're cueing the track, you should adjust the knob in order to hit the 0dB meter mark for the peaks of the track. If you do this with every song you cue up it will ensure a smooth audio level throughout the mix.

Thx Pulse. I figured so but I just thought I'd ask the question. Thanks for your help.

Cheers,
C

they may as well. Most music these days is over compressed and sounds like ****. Welcome to the loudness war.

A friend of mine was actually telling me that the album version of Metallica's new album has been mastered at the loudest possible setting whereas the same tracks available on Guitar Hero sound much better since the levels are lower from pre-mastered tracks. I haven't heard them both side-by-side to compare, but it would be interesting to hear how they stack up.

luckily, non-mainstream music in general is not as pushed to the limit as commercial **** is, but I've got some house tracks (proper house, not that airy fairy radio-friendly stuff) and UKG that is just NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSE

I read about a software last week that some djs recommended on the site.
Basically the software normalizes and/or remasters (i mean that in the lamest terms 'cause i don't remember the words they used!)your audio files by scanning them.

If anyone is interested i can find the site or the name again.
Pulse, can I say the name here. I don't think pioneer is in competition with them.

Try searching for MP3 volume normalize and see if that comes up. You can post it as long as it's not a link to a site that competes with us...

Also try this it's free and very good for reworking tracks and I believe you can change volume levels before saving a project. Also most burning sw has an option before the burn starts to normalize and align all tracks volume..

Personally, I'm not a fan of normalization. I think the tracks should be as the artist intended instead of flattened out. Dynamic range is important and all too often, it gets thrown out the window with poor normalization schemes. Adjust each track yourself.

Platinum Notes - Audio Mastering Software for DJs

Google it and see how you like it.
Personally I think that the best advice here on this topic is the second post by Pulse. There is a lot of software and gadgets out there for everything but sometimes (in my opinion only) you get the best results from just keeping things simple.
hope the software i mentioned is what you are looking for and it helps.

regards,
Shah

This is an area which pissed me off with a certain well known digital DJ package. They implemented an 'auto gain' feature, which completely ruins a track's dynamic range in order for its perceived loudness to be the same as another. Rane have always been at the forefront of sound quality, so I was a bit surprised when this feature popped up.
My mixer (no names! ) shows both RMS and peak levels on the vu meters. At first it took a bit of getting used to, but it's actually a handy tool. I remember when I was a young lad (here we go) and I got my DJM600. I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread because I could set each track (playing and incoming) to 0dB and be done with it. No more dodgy levels like I had with my first mixer - a Numark £100 POS. After creating a few mix CDs, I wasn't happy with the way that some tracks sounded louder than others. I did some digging and reading and then found out all about dynamic range, perceived loudness and compression.

I thinks it application based. Meaning that dependent upon the gig or situation you adjust the overall sound as needed. I often times get a track that is much louder than others and with a private style gig it's a bit easier than a club bangin gig to adjust out on the fly; but I still set my burner to normailze the tracks on a disc so I have a constant level....

Jay,
I hav always been affraid of that feature. Mainly due to lack of knowledge on my part.

My Q for you sir... if you have 5 or 10 songs on a cd and one or two are really crappy quality and 2 or 3 are ok quality and the rest fine. Doese "normalization" (when burning) look at each track individually or are you compermising the quality of the rest of the tracks by doing that. do those one or two weak links make the rest weak too?
tx

That's a good question. I started using it years ago when I was getting older (50's and 60's) tracks that just were noticeably lower volume. I felt that it brought all in line, and I'll look today and see if the process brings the tracks up/down; I really don't know... The program I use went out of business 2 years ago and I still use it, so I'll see what tech info I can get. But I'm sure it has a "number" that it works from and tries to get the tracks compressed/expanded to that level..

Any audiophiles want to jump in on this one?

Thanks Jay, l look forward to the answer popping up here

quote:

Originally posted by Pulse:
Personally, I'm not a fan of normalization. I think the tracks should be as the artist intended instead of flattened out. Dynamic range is important and all too often, it gets thrown out the window with poor normalization schemes. Adjust each track yourself.

Normalisation has no effect whatsoever on a track's dynamic range. No compression or expansion takes place. It just globally adjusts a track's volume to a predetermined maximum reference level.

What you seem to be talking about is audio compression, and that's a totally different thing altogether.

Audio Normalisation WIKI

Cheers, Slipstreem.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: StormChaser,

A good and proper normalization does not - but a lot of the "el-cheapo" normalization schemes included in many commercial software titles, do.

Instead of maintaining the dynamic range of the highest peak to quietest valley and boosting the overall waveform to max at the highest value for the peaks, they squish everything up so that the peaks are at the max, but the quiet passages are no longer quiet, they too have been boosted and thus the range between high and low is reduced.

Maybe it would be more helpful to give people examples of packages that do purely normalise in a non-dynamic range destructive way rather than tarring them all with the same brush as in the post that prompted my reply. Here are a few perfectly behaved examples off the top of my head...

Any versions of Nero, Roxio, CDBurnerXP, Audacity, CDex, Exact Audio Copy (EAC), dBpoweramp Music Converter (dMC), any programs implementing MP3Gain or ReplayGain as the sole form of normalisation.

Infact, I'm not personally aware of any packages that simultaneously apply compression and normalisation when just asked to normalise.

I don't understand what you're trying to say in the second paragraph I'm afraid. Of course the quiet passages are given the same boost in gain as the loud passages. That's exactly what normalisation (or turning up the volume control - same thing) does. Leaving the quiet passages where they were and cranking up the gain for the louder passages would be dynamic expansion, not normalisation.

Normalisation alone never has and never will have any effect whatsoever on dynamic range, unless the implementation in question isn't just normalisation. The very definition of "normalisation" as a process doesn't allow it.

Please name some of the packages you refer to in the post above that do harm dynamic range when claiming to just be normalising. The authors need telling about it if their software is broken.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

I'll have to dig through my list of "bad apps" to figure it out, it's likely another case of "it's been so long since they were bad, perhaps they're good again" (just like the old VBR encoders).

Personally, I use pro-end audio editing software (SoundForge, ProTools, etc) in which I work directly on the waveform itself rather than relying on a program to blindly apply its "best guess" based on whatever algorithm the software engineers liked. I prefer to see just what any change actually DOES to the audio, especially if it's a potentially destructive change with harmful results.

There's no best-guessing involved in the process of normalisation and never has been. I suggest that you read and inwardly digest the link I gave above. Every sample of the file in question is measured for amplitude and the highest peak is taken as the reference level for processing.

The required factor of amplification is then applied equally to all samples throughout the file to bring the original peak level up to the new reference peak level. Normalisation always adjusts to a level of 0dB or below and always applies the same amplification factor to every sample throughout the waveform, therefore, no clipping and no destruction of dynamic range.

Manually editing a waveform rather than applying global gain correction (as carried out by normalisation) is absolutely 100% guaranteed to either introduce distortion or localised compression or expansion. Isn't that exactly what you're trying to avoid? It's you who's best-guessing by doing so, not normalisation that's guessing by carrying out a very simple and identical multiplication factor on all values identically.

Repeatedly inferring that almost everything is broken doesn't help anyone on this forum. I'm happy to stick with my argument of the fact that normalisation does work as it should unless a particular implementation is broken. I can provide evidence if you need it. If you're convinced otherwise then I think you owe it to the people you're telling otherwise to prove otherwise.

There's already been significant disinformation spread on this forum regarding VBR MP3 files through a lack of knowledge on the part of various contributors leading to the invention of supposed "facts". Please try to avoid doing the same over the incredibly simple and entirely standardised process of normalisation. It helps nobody.

Cheers, Slipstreem.