I address the 10 most common myths, and the truth behind each, below.

Peak Normalization

First, some background: While “normalize” can mean several things (see below), the myths below primarily involve peak normalization.

Peak normalization is an automated process that changes the level of each sample in a digital audio signal by the same amount, such that the loudest sample reaches a specified level. Traditionally, the process is used to ensure that the signal peaks at 0dBfs, the loudest level allowed in a digital system.

Normalizing is indistinguishable from moving a volume knob or fader. The entire signal changes by the same fixed amount, up or down, as required. But the process is automated: The digital audio system scans the entire signal to find the loudest peak, then adjusts each sample accordingly.

Some of the myths below reflect nothing more than a misunderstanding of this process. As usual with common misconceptions, though, some of the myths also stem from a more fundamental misunderstanding – in this case, about sound, mixing, and digital audio.

Myths and misinformation

Myth #1: Normalizing makes each track the same volume
Normalizing a set of tracks to a common level ensures only that the loudest peak in each track is the same. However, our perception of loudness depends on many factors, including sound intensity, duration, and frequency. While the peak signal level is important, it has no consistent relationship to the overall loudness of a track – think of the cannon blasts in the 1812 Overture.

Myth #2: Normalizing makes a track as loud as it can be
Consider these two mp3 files, each normalized to -3dB:

The second is, by any subjective standard, “louder” than the first. And while the normalized level of the first file obviously depends on a single peak, the snare drum hit at 0:04, this serves to better illustrate the point: Our perception of loudness is largely unrelated to the peaks in a track, and much more dependent on the average level throughout the track.

Myth #3: Normalizing makes mixing easier
I suspect this myth stems from a desire to remove some mystery from the mixing process. Especially for beginners, the challenge of learning to mix can seem insurmountable, and the promise of a “trick” to simplify the process is compelling.

In this case, unfortunately, there are no short cuts. A track’s level pre-fader has no bearing on how that track will sit in a mix. With the audio files above, for example, the guitar must come down in level at least 12dB to mix properly with the drums.

Simply put, there is no “correct” track volume – let alone a correct track peak level.

Myth #4: Normalizing increases (or decreases) the dynamic range
A normalized track can sound as though it has more punch. However, this is an illusion dependent on our tendency to mistake “louder” for “better.”

By definition, the dynamic range of a recording is the difference between the loudest and softest parts. Peak normalization affects these equally, and as such leaves the difference between them unchanged. You can affect a recording’s dynamics with fader moves & volume automation, or with processors like compressors and limiters. But a simple volume change that moves everything up or down in level by the same amount doesn’t alter the dynamic range.

Myth #5: Normalized tracks “use all the bits”
With the relationship between bit depth and dynamic range, each bit in a digital audio sample represents 6dB of dynamic range. An 8-bit sample can capture a maximum range of 48dB between silence and the loudest sound, where a 16-bit sample can capture a 96dB range.

In a 16-bit system, a signal peaking at -36dBfs has a maximum dynamic range of 60dB. So in effect, this signal doesn’t use the top 6 bits of each sample*. The thinking goes, then, that by normalizing the signal peak to 0dBfs, we “reclaim” those bits and make use of the full 96dB dynamic range.

But as shown above, normalization doesn’t affect the dynamic range of a recording. Normalizing may increase the range of sample values used, but the actual dynamic range of the encoded audio doesn’t change. To the extent it even makes sense to think of a signal in these terms*, normalization only changes which bits are used to represent the signal.

*NOTE: This myth also rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of digital audio, and perhaps binary numbering. Every sample in a digital (PCM) audio stream uses all the bits, all the time. Some bits may be set to 0, or “turned off,” but they still carry information.

Myth #6: Normalizing can’t hurt the audio, so why not just do it?
Best mixing practices dictate that you never apply processing “just because.” But even setting that aside, there are at least 3 reasons NOT to normalize:

1. Normalizing raises the signal level, but also raises the noise level. Louder tracks inevitably mean louder noise. You can turn the level of a normalized track down to lower the noise, of course, but then why normalize in the first place?
2. Louder tracks leave less headroom before clipping occurs. Tracks that peak near 0dBfs are more likely to clip when processed with EQ and effects.
3. Normalizing to near 0dbfs can introduce inter sample peaks.

Myth #7: One should always normalize
As mixing and recording engineers, “always” and “never” are the closest we have to dirty words. Every mixing decision depends on the mix itself, and since every mix is different, no single technique will be correct 100% of the time.

And so it goes with normalization. Normalizing has valid applications, but you should decide on a track-by-track basis whether or not the process is required.

Myth #8: Normalizing is a complete waste of time.
There are at least 2 instances when your DAW’s ‘normalize’ feature is a great tool:

1. When a track’s level is so low that you can’t use gain and volume faders to make the track loud enough for your mix. This points to an issue with the recording, and ideally you’d re-record the track at a more appropriate level. But at times when that’s not possible, normalizing can salvage an otherwise unusable take.
2. When you explicitly need to set a track’s peak level without regard to its perceived loudness. For example, when working with test tones, white noise, and other non-musical content. You can set the peak level manually – play through the track once, note the peak, and raise the track’s level accordingly – but the normalize feature does the work for you.

Myth #9: Normalizing ensures a track won’t clip
A single track normalized to 0dBfs won’t clip. However, that track may be processed or filtered (e.g. an EQ boost,) causing it to clip. And if the track is part of a mix that includes other tracks, all normalized to 0dB, it’s virtually guaranteed that the sum of all the tracks will exceed the loudest peak in any single track. In other words, normalizing only protects you against clipping in the simplest possible case.

Myth #10: Normalizing requires an extra dithering step
(Note: Please read Adam’s comment below for a great description of how I oversimplified this myth.) This last myth is a little esoteric, but it pops up sporadically in online recording discussions. Usually, in the form of a claim, “it’s OK to normalize in 24 bits but not in 16 bits, because …” followed by an explanation that betrays a misunderstanding of digital audio.

Simply put: A digital system dithers when changing bit depth. (i.e. Converting from 24-bits to 16-bits.) Normalizing operates independent of bit depth, changing only the level of each sample. Since no bit-rate conversion takes place, no dithering is required.

Other Definitions

Normalizing can mean a few other things. In the context of mastering an album, engineers often normalize the album’s tracks to the same level. This refers to the perceived level, though, as judged by the mastering engineer, and bears no relationship to the peak level of each track.

Some systems (e.g. Sound Forge) also offer “RMS Normalization,” designed to adjust a track based on its average, rather than peak, level. This approach closer matches how we interpret loudness. However, as with peak normalization, it ultimately still requires human judgment to confirm that the change works as intended.

Some engineers even argue over which type of dither is best, claiming this algorithm is more airy sounding that that one, and so forth. But just because everyone believes this, does that make it true?

That quote comes from Ethan Winer’s great summary of his position on the matter – he’s squarely in the “dithering is usually not needed” camp.

I tend to agree with Ethan. Responsible mixing engineers don’t apply processing to a mix if they themselves don’t hear the effect of the processing. Simply put, if you can’t hear a difference, don’t make the change.

Unmitigated awesome: Daved Lee Roth’s vocal track from Runnin With The Devil, solo’d.

Converting Ikea bedside tables into studio racks: “the Rast bedside table makes a snug rack for music machines.”

Two unrelated sites feature famous songwriters discussing what went on behind the scenes as they wrote:

First, Joni Mitchell on the writing and recording of her most recent album:

When I recorded it, I was sick so a doctor prescribed some penicillin, which I had an allergic reaction to. I was delirious, stressed out, and we worked all night long. I was so delirious that I was playing way back on the beat… [I]n January 2007, I had demos of the Shine songs with me and played them to some friends at a party afterward. James Taylor told me that he had to play on this song. I wasn’t sure if anyone could because it was created in such a rare spirit. But James came in anyway and I asked him to play short figures like a saxophone. So you can hear fractions of James’ guitar playing here.

Jim Vallance’s site has some fantastic insight into the mind of a professional songwriter. Jim, who’s worked with Aerosmith, Ozzy, Bryan Adams, The Scorpions, and Thornley, meticulously lists every song he has ever written. The site is full of anecdotes and details about his creation process.

On our very first basement demo of “Summer of ‘69″ we started the song with the 12-string riff, exactly like the “break down” section in the middle of the song … but on subsequent demo’s we replaced the 12-string with a chunky 6-string intro. In fact, we toiled over the musical arrangement for several weeks, maybe longer. We recorded the song three or four different ways, and we still weren’t convinced we had it right! Bryan even considered dropping the song from the Reckless album.

Now, 20 years later, when I hear “Summer of ‘69″ on the radio, I honestly can’t remember what bothered us.

Columbia didn’t want Rubin to punch a clock. It wanted him to save the company. And just maybe the record business… It is Columbia’s belief that Rubin will hear the answers in the music — that he will find the solution to its ever-increasing woes. The mighty music business is in free fall — it has lost control of radio; retail outlets like Tower Records have shut down; MTV rarely broadcasts music videos; and the once lucrative album market has been overshadowed by downloaded singles, which mainly benefits Apple.

The article, though, also skirts an important question, one that leads to a lesson for independent artists and labels: How can Rubin, and Columbia, possibly restore the industry’s grip on our perception of value?

Trying Something Different

In their fawning over Rubin as a producer, the Times missed the most puzzling element of the story. Bob Lefsetz, however, minces no words getting to the point:

… I couldn’t stop scratching my head and wondering what the fuck Rick Rubin was DOING at Columbia. I mean if he really wanted to revolutionize the business, make a difference, would he have taken a job at a MAJOR LABEL?

On one hand, it’s easy to sympathize with Columbia. At least they’re trying something different. (Perhaps the whole “sue the fans” thing hasn’t panned out as expected.) But at the same time, Rubin’s hire suggests a surprising circumstance: Columbia has bought into a persistent myth, a myth they themselves even helped promote.

The myth of the record deal

Success in pop music, financial success anyway, has never really been about the music. The idea that a band succeeds simply by having talent and getting discovered by a record label is a myth practically as old as recording technology.

From the music industry’s perspective, continued acceptance of the myth has had no downside. Bands lined up, indeed spent their careers, hoping their talent would snag them a coveted recording deal, and in the process provided an endless supply of product for the labels. Fans, for their part, believed that because record deals are so exclusive, the labels must truly be filtering the most talented artists.

Fan opinion on the matter has obviously changed in recent years (thanks very much, Kris Kross.) But bands, by and large, haven’t given up the idea that talent plus representation equals success. And with a “music guru” now in charge of business affairs, the execs at Columbia seem, implausibly, to be saying exactly that. As though their main problem this last decade was simply a lack of really talented artists.

A David Geffen quote from the NY Times article illustrates how wildly off the mark this is: [emphasis mine]

Only 10 years ago, companies wanted to make records, presumably good records, and see if they sold.

10 years ago, the Spice Girls and Hanson topped the charts. One needn’t look any further for definitive examples of marketing-over-music, style-over-substance promotion. The antithesis of “presumably good.” And while we also heard OK Computer for the first time in 1997, Capitol deemed the album commercial suicide. Hardly an example of a company “wanting to make a record.”

Had Geffen said “10 years ago, companies wanted to market carefully selected product to a captive audience,” we’d have a far more accurate depiction of the music industry’s history. In fact, by 1997 the major labels had refined the process of maintaining a captive audience, an environment in which they could dictate the value of their product to consumers.

Historical Context

For 3 generations now, record execs and their A/R men have done one thing best: Sell us what we want to hear.

But note, the emphasis has always been on “sell” instead of “what we want.” Rather than serving as filters for the good stuff, the major labels built their empires by understanding consumers, then signing artists they could most easily market to those consumers.

An act’s talent mattered only insomuch as it affected the label’s ability to effectively market that act (<cough>Milli Vanilli<cough>.) That’s not to say talent was irrelevant, of course. But since the labels had ultimate and final say over what we heard, an artist’s talent was but a factor to consider. The much more important consideration remained, for most of the industry’s history, whether the label could dictate to us how we’d perceive the act’s value.

The power to control our perception of value, it turns out, was crucial.

For all their blustering about theft and rights and suffering artists, the major labels are still among the most powerful marketing forces on the planet. Witness Linkin Park’s latest release if you doubt this.

But Napster changed one – and only one – thing: Unfettered access to music meant that listeners suddenly had a say in what constitutes “value.” No longer hindered by the financial burden of purchasing every new release, we picked and chose the acts and songs that we wanted to hear. In effect, we each became our own A/R department.

What does this mean for independent artists?

In most ways, the basic “rules of the game” haven’t changed. The path to success in any creative endeavour has always been (persistent myths notwithstanding,) “create valuable content, convince people of its value, then charge people what they’re willing to pay.”

Rick Rubin probably understands this. And he may even yet save Columbia. But in the meantime, the record industry’s free fall has one ongoing ramification for indies. As long as the major labels strive to dictate value, they’ll remain irrelevant – we no longer need them to do that. And as long as the majors remain irrelevant, indie artists and labels needn’t be distracted by the majors, and more importantly by their once-tempting promise of the almighty recording contract.

Columbia’s lesson for indies, then, in short: Forget about mythical record deals, and focus on creating content of value.

If you haven’t read it, my interview with Andrew Dubber touches on what this means in practice, and his 20 Things You Must Know … series goes into far more detail on how to be relevant and valuable as an indie artist.

See Also: Ways I’ve made money as an indie artist, Opportunities for indie artists

For more articles on issues important to indie artists,
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed, or receive email updates.

Don’t believe it. In recorded sound, accuracy is a myth.

Sample rate refers to the regularity with which a digital recording system checks its input for sound. Systems that sample more often can capture higher frequencies. An engineer named Harry Nyquist figured out the head-spinning math, and concluded that 44,100 samples a second, the rate used for compact discs, lets us record audio frequencies up to about 22 KHz.

This is 2 KHz beyond the accepted limit of human hearing, and in theory allows the capture of all the high frequency detail we can possibly hear. However, recent studies suggest that we are sensitive to hypersonic signals, even if they don’t register on our ears. Because of this, some audiophiles claim that recordings lacking these very high frequencies are less accurate.

In this context, accuracy is a myth, and it should be obvious to recording and mixing engineers why. The nature of our craft dictates that it is impossible to perfectly and faithfully recreate a sound source. We choose which gear to use for a given situation, and the properties of that gear affect how it colours any sound it records. Further, our mixes differ on every listening system, from the studio monitors to car stereos to iPod ear buds; and finally, the frequency response of human hearing is incredibly volume-sensitive, so individual listeners hear everything differently to begin with.

These are the facts of life for mixing engineers. We strive, then, to achieve “transparency” in mixes, in place of perfect accuracy. We want our mixes to translate well from system to system – never perfect, but always good. It’s an act of hubris on the part of a listener to assume that his $5,000 amp and $10,000 speakers will yield more accurate or perfect sound than what the mixing engineer intended. And this underlines an important point: Unless you deal with sounds captured through a single mic, every sound in a recording is the result of a mixing decision.

So the use of higher sample rates to achieve better accuracy is a flawed concept. However, that raises another argument often offered in favour of capturing high frequency content: “Even if most systems can’t reproduce the extra detail, the ones that can will offer an improved experience, so why not just leave it in?”

This line of reasoning makes sense for consumers eager to rationalize the month’s pay just spent on a power amp. But amateur mix engineers should know better. The argument that 44.1 KHz recordings are less enjoyable because of missing hypersonic frequencies relies on three assumptions:

1. That the recording gear was sensitive to the desirable high frequencies,
2. that the monitoring environment allowed the mixing engineer to make decisions about those frequencies, and
3. that the mixing engineer is sensitive to hypersonic frequencies in an objective way, and included only those frequencies which enhance the sound.

There are certainly gifted (and fortunate) engineers who satisfy all three conditions. But before deciding to use a high sample rate, you must ask yourself honestly if you are among of them. In fact, unless you have the equipment to accurately capture and gauge high frequency content, and believe you can objectively mix the signal, the notion that “adding it can’t hurt” is antithetical to good mixing practice. Transparent mixing depends on making decisions that improve the mix. Every element of the mix should improve the final sound, or it’s simply not needed.

Adding high frequencies “just because” is equivalent to slapping a compressor on every track because you saw Butch Vig do it once. We all know this is bad practice. And the same rationale bears directly on the decision about which sample rate to use. Unless your equipment and skills are up to the task, tracking at 88.2 KHz or 96 KHz might damage your recordings.

For more articles on making great home recordings,
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed, or receive email updates.

… logically speaking, just because a large number of people believe something does not alone make it the truth. Even more important, all the audiophile tweaks in the world are meaningless compared to such basics as installing proper acoustic treatment in the control room and using solid engineering techniques.