Talk:Audio normalization

message: 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)
replies: text: Someone needs to add a reference or two before this can exit stub status. --Kvng (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: "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)
thread_title: Number of passes to achieve normalization

message: 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)
replies: text: I have only one word to say: Bravo PolBr. Wfplb (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  not amplitude for loudness 

message: This was posted to my talk page. I have moved it here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed source