Normalization / Compression workflow for H4n audio

[Chadfish]

Bruce if I still had my Zoom I'd pull it out ant try this myself to help out here, but I sold it because it was just too hard to work with in a professional environment. I just don't understand how it's hard to get a good signal out of the 302, with 60+ db of clean gain. After you did the tone method, did you just turn up the 302 all the way and see what you got? Did you turn down the headphone level on the 302? Loud headphone levels can seem like you are distorting the recorder, but its only in the cans.

I'm stumped. Even with the tone method I mentioned, if the levels were too low after turning the mixer way up, you could always inch up the recorder level until it sounds good. Perhaps you have an attenuating cable going from your 302 to the Zoom? That could account for the low levels. Or at least jiggle the 1/8" cable at the connection points to see if it's the cable or the connections. These mixers should be able to blow anything out when they are turned up.

 

[bruce7]

I agree with everything you said. I rented all the gear and so I don't have it around to try anything new. Maybe it was the cable.
I just know that I had trouble and worked with Sound Devices on the phone to try an resolve it. He thought it was weird that
the 302 could not get better levels out of the Zoom. Second time around I used a 702 recorder with the 302 mixer and everything
went perfect. So I'm not going back to the Zoom anytime soon myself.

 

[Noiz2]

Noiz2, I have to say that "Normalize" is a different process in different apps. The way I use Normalize (when I sometimes do) I use it in Steinberg WaveLab. All that does it set a level for the highest peak of the file. So if I set normalize to -2db, the loudest peak is at -2db, but its only done as a volume increase. No change in the dynamics. I think Soundflrge does something different.

You are correct. What I meant is people go and normalize every clip and by doing that you are trashing the levels and the dynamics of the track, not of the individual clips. Not sure if that is any clearer... Say one person is aways away and the other is in a ECU. If you normalize both the one far away is as loud as the one close up. In the right hands a good normalizer has some good uses. They got a bad name because they were over used and the math used to be a bit wonky so they didn't sound good. A lot of video "sound people" have been trained to normalize everything all the time.

 

[Chadfish]

Right I get you. Normalize only for one complete track with all the level relationships enact and final otherwise stuff that's supposed to be quieter will sound wrong.

Wen I have multiple files I want to boost the levels on through a process, I'll find the peak level (a button I can select in WaveLab's Gain, or Normalize dialogue boxes) of the file and choose the amount I want to increase the gain, then apply that to all so the uniformity remains the same. But really when dealing with dialogue in a video project I just toggle on the old overlays, boost the volume, or if that's not enough I stack more instances of the audio files until I'm satisfied. Of course watching for clipping. It's not hard.

 

[Noiz2]

I agree with those examples, but there is A LOT of video production happening outside of those examples where editors have to mix their own sound. We will always need the expert gurus in those areas to help guide us in technique and tools whether its mixing sound or color correcting our images, products like magic bullet looks wont make you a colorist but it can help you achieve a quick solution that is appealing to the client.

In the same way simple techniques or tools can help the editor be a better sound mixer.

The editor working on that wedding video, corporate video, etc, won't be sending out his audio to be mastered at Abbey Road but his audio is just as important to him. Why can't he have sound just as good? Having balanced audio levels isn't rocket science, so what are the methods and workflows?

The thing is it isn't usually "just as important" to them. If it was they would have someone do a proper job. It's not sending it out to Abby Road, it's hiring a local sound person. He (or she) can have sound "just as good" IF he has someone "just as good" do the post sound. It's not about "balancing" the audio levels, I'm not even sure exactly what that means. I'm assuming you mean mixing.

Your implication is that only big budget productions can afford to have a sound person do the post. That is just not so. I have worked on a ton of doc's and student films. If a student can afford to get a real sound person to do sound post then there are very few who can not afford to have a decent sound track. The people who DO care about the sound track manage to get it done. Sound editor make a lot less that picture editors so having a picture editor "do your sound" is probably costing you a bunch anyway.

I can't really help much with advice on how to run through it and punt it out the door because I don't do that kind of work, even for free. And I'm kind of against lowering the bar on clients expectations.

That's not to say that some jobs for a variety of reasons are not going to go to audio post. But don't kid yourself, they are not going to be "just as good" as they would have been if they had. Just like Magic Bullet Looks, is very cool but it is not the same as having a colorist. It's probably a lot closer because your still talking visuals, sound is a completely different set of muscles.

If your not going to sound post then just mix it. The plugin that does a great automated sound post comes in a bundle with the one that does a great automated picture edit. I don't remember the name but I remember I couldn't afford it ;~)

 

[Imaginate]

Normalize allows you to raise the highest peak up to 0db; gain allows you to raise the clip by percentage, a small but crucial difference as you can raise peaks to above 0db. The peaks above 0db distort like crazy but the rest of the clip is okay, so you just edit out the distortion and replace with the original audio - this is just a tiny piece of what dialog editing is all about.

Dialog mixing is another completely different trip. Every mixer I know has his/her own signal flow and choice of plug-ins. Just about the only things they seem to agree upon is that the noise reduction plug-in comes first, and volume levels are automated in the track. After that it's varied orders of compression, EQ, limiting, etc. I personally automate the hell out of the volumes - sometimes syllable by syllable - as I prefer not to use a limiter. Then my chain is noise reduction and EQ. The dialog receives very mild compression* on the stem buss to give the dialog little extra "pop".
* Usually 1.5:1, maybe up to 5:1 if it's an action scene to help the dialog cut through dense music and sound FX.

This is really helpful, thanks for sharing this. The only thing that surprised my was gaining up allowing the peaks beyond 0db, but who cares when your editing them out anyhow. I just thought that's the kind of thing that a limiter was for.

 

[robotsound]

When I'm editing dialog, I don't use automatic anything!

To do this properly, any reasonable DAW will be able to get the job done. You should probably be able to do it right in your editing program too.

After your picture edit is locked, you (or someone) needs to go through, scene by scene, and fix all the problems one by one. There isn't any plug-in for this. It's just a lot of editing.

In the same way that you wouldn't expect to run your raw footage through an Edit-O-Matic and come out with a finished video, you should avoid running whatever sound happened to be on your editing timeline through some effects and expecting it to work any better.

To be more specific, using any kind of compressor is going to add noise. This is because compressors lower the dynamic range of your sound. They do this by lowering the volume on your sound by a certain amount (the ratio) once it gets past a certain level (the threshold). It's kind of like levels or curves in Photoshop or color grading, but with sound.

Now that the loud parts of your sound have been leveled off by the compressor, it will be too quiet. The next step is for the compressor to raise the overall volume of your clip. This is called make-up gain. As your noise floor was probably below the compression threshold, guess what happens? The level of the background noise is brought up, and your sound now has far more apparent noise since you just amplified it.

Maximizers or limiters are playing the same basic game, but with more aggressive ratios and higher thresholds.

When I do dialog editing, I don't use any of these things. Instead, I go through and manually automate the volume so that the loud parts aren't too loud, the soft parts aren't too soft, and if there was a lot of background noise in the production sound I'll lower that when people aren't talking.

If the production sound is good, you can use a light touch. If you're doing salvage work, sometimes you have to go word by word, or sentence by sentence.

The other thing is when the edit switches between sound clips, I will manually put fades at the start and end of each clip. I don't just do an automatic cross fade either. Often what sounds best will be to bring the new clip in abruptly right as the person starts talking, while slowly fading out the old clip. It really just depends though, and I use my ears rather than conforming to one pattern over and over.

All of this is a lot of work, and it can be kind of a chore. However, if you want your films to sound great, this is how professional dialog editors do it.

 

[DrDave]

I never use normalization. I just split the wave at the peaks, reshape them and then boost the gain. If you need a prefab plugin, the Waves ones are certainly time tested. Assuming you recorded in 24 bits, you should be able to boost it quite a bit. For compression, I use parallel compression.