Talk:Audio normalization

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	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.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stub

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 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 24 July 2006

True. Only then though would the article not be a stub. --Davidkazuhiro 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add a reference or two before this can exit stub status. --Kvng (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of passes to achieve normalization

"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 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

not amplitude for loudness

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.

RMS average value is not average amplitude.
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)[reply]

I have only one word to say: Bravo PolBr. Wfplb (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disputed source

This was posted to my talk page. I have moved it here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for reaching out. I am new here, so please forgive any formatting mistakes I may be making (even with this talk page).

You recently removed a citation I added to the information I added to Loudness Normalization under Audio Normalization. Your reason stated, "Undid revision 848405309 by Greenegirly (talk) can't find referenced article at URL provided or anywhere else on this site". This is not factual; this is where the information was gathered that I added.

About half way down the page there are questions with answers. One question says, "What are the 'Loudness Wars' and loudness normalization?".

The answer is, "Simply put, the ‘loudness wars’ refers to a philosophy amongst music creators that louder is literally better. If you can make your music louder than everyone else, people will be able to hear it from farther away and physiologically like it better. If you compare music from before loudness normalization to music of today, you’ll see that there is some logic to the argument. The human brain does perceive something louder as sounding better. Loudness normalization is the process of measuring the loudness of a piece of music, then using the reading to lower the level to a standard reference level. For example, YouTube’s reference level is -14 LUFS, so if a song is analyzed to be -10 LUFS, YouTube will lower the level by 4DBs to bring it to the reference of -14 LUFS. Loudness normalization was created to combat varying loudness when listening to multiple songs in a sequence. Before loudness normalization, one song in a playlist might be quieter than the rest, so the end listener would have to turn up a volume knob to adjust the playback volume. Then, if the next song in the playlist were super loud, the listener would have to turn the volume back down. This leads to a terrible user experience where listeners are constantly adjusting a volume knob. Because of loudness normalization, being louder is no longer the focus; dynamics are!"

If you're still un-able to locate this information I can take a screenshot as well.

Is there any other reason to justify the citation's removal other than not being able to locate the article? Sorry for the novel, I'm new to Wiki. I think Loudness Normalization is a notable topic with growing interest that is lacking on Wikipedia. Please advise. Greenegirly (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenegirly: Thanks for helping me locate this. I didn't see the material when I scrolled the page originally because you need to click it to open it. This is not a very good source because it is self published. It is also not a very good source because it claims the loudness war is fueled by philosophy. It is fueled by a psychoacoustic effect where louder is judged to be better. Maybe you can have a look at Loudness war and choose a better source that's already used there. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]