|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 148
Apprentice
|
OP
Apprentice
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 148 |
Was this a feature of 2010?
Is there a setting to Save As a normalised WAV?
Thanks
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,569
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,569 |
This statement is listed as a 2010 feature:
Rendering now has a Normalize option, to normalize individual tracks or the complete arrangement. Normalizing boosts the volume to a maximum level without distortion. Most professional music tracks are normalized.
If you click on the WAV button, there is a checkbox for Normalize in the Render to Audio dialog box.
Last edited by Matt Finley; 12/31/09 05:19 PM.
BIAB 2026 Win Audiophile. Software: Fender Studio One 8, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6, Song Master Pro, Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Fender Quantom HD8 & Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Yeah, we know.
But where in blazes are the controls to use it?
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,569
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,569 |
I just added the method to the post above:
If you click on the WAV button, there is a checkbox for Normalize in the Render to Audio dialog box.
It's not in the menus, but it is in the Help under "Render Audio to Stereo WAV file".
Last edited by Matt Finley; 12/31/09 05:19 PM.
BIAB 2026 Win Audiophile. Software: Fender Studio One 8, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6, Song Master Pro, Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Fender Quantom HD8 & Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25 |
Actually most professional commercial tracks are NOT normalized but "COMPRESSED".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,569
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,569 |
Yes, and how unfortunate.
BIAB 2026 Win Audiophile. Software: Fender Studio One 8, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6, Song Master Pro, Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Fender Quantom HD8 & Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 148
Apprentice
|
|
OP
Apprentice
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 148 |
Quote:
If you click on the WAV button, there is a checkbox for Normalize in the Render to Audio dialog box.
OK, I got it. Thanks
HNY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792 |
Normalise is not that hot either for most things.
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25 |
Not hot at all for pro applications. For the most part,It's used sparingly nowadays to bring up the gain just a hair on a segment of an audio track. You could go through weeks of production and never even hear the name of it once.It's known to cause all kinds of errors. Normalizing has nothing to do with Compression and limiting that are used or abused to death these days to make the tracks louder and louder. Normalizing could actually make the track sound a lot worse than it already was, because it raises every thing including noise..etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 148
Apprentice
|
|
OP
Apprentice
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 148 |
OK I see what you are all saying. So, if my drum track is currently peaking at -12dB it doesn't really matter and normalise won't make it any better...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25 |
Quote:
OK I see what you are all saying. So, if my drum track is currently peaking at -12dB it doesn't really matter and normalise won't make it any better...?
Ok, what do you mean by "any better"? "Normalizing" will not make your track's sound quality better. If by better, you mean louder, yes, it will make it sound louder by user specified amount. To clear any confusion, I was refering to pro applications. If you're just trying to gain up a drum track, so you could rehearse better or have fun with it, you could do anything you want. In fact that could be a fast lazy way of doing it. Just normalize it, and everything would seem louder with a touch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 235
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 235 |
Not completely true. Yes it lifts also the noise up with it, but then again, this is irrelevant for the usage.
Normalizing is done, to make the peak or RMS level to be up to a certain level. In fact RMS normalizing is a bit of a weird one, since it is a way of limiting (hence probably the link above to compressing). It boosts the power of a track, but you rather would do that with a good compressor or limiter.
Peak normalizing however, is just bringing up the highest peak in the wav file to a certain level. So the if the loudest peak is -3dB, the complete file will get a 3dB boost. That way the tracks' dynamics stay the same. Peak normalizing is quite standard and is used to have your levels peaking up to or almost up to 0 dB which makes mixing more comfortable. A track that was recorded too soft however, will have a lot of noise added as that gets boosted as well. But most tracks will have at least a bit spare room up there since we try to record things without distortion in the digital world, so not peaking and clipping too much. Peak normalizing brings them back to max levels, without ruining dynamics. It makes that you don't end up with your faders all up high in the sky or lowering other tracks too much to be able to hear it in the mix..
So ingeneral: that -12db drumtrack (peak) can use that boost. If after that it becomes too noisy, it has been recorded too soft!
In other words: It will for sure not sound "worse" as stated before, because all you do is boost that what was there to begin with. So if the noisefloor was lifted with it, it is not the normalizing which does bad things to your track, but the recording just was bad... Therefore, trimming the incoming signal up to the loudest possible level (so just a bit under the moment of clipping/distorting) in recordings is an essential and critical issue, you always should do properly!
I'll be back...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25 |
Quote:
Not completely true. Yes it lifts also the noise up with it, but then again, this is irrelevant for the usage.
Disagree. You always should consider the side effects of whatever action you're taking to treat a sonic problem. This is especially going to be a big fat problem with recorded real acoustic instruments. All kinds of noise, squeaks and stuff are going to get turned up as well. Then, you have a new problem on your hand, no matter how impressive your meter level looks afterwards. Of course, those noises aren't added to the track by Normalizing it, but now they're audible and more pronounced.Therefor it "could" sound worse very much so depending on the quality of the original recording. If there's a need to boost track that much, you might as well re-record the track if it's an option.
@ Mus:
What don't you experiment with different type of tracks, and hear the results for yourself. That'll help you a lot.
Last edited by tritonkorg; 01/01/10 01:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 20,586
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 20,586 |
Thanks abaudio. You've explained this very well.
Am I correct in saying that peak-normalizing can be compared to simply turning up the overall volume of a sound system? That is, everything gets lifted by the same amount but the relative differences between individual sounds remains the same. For example if I have two sounds, one and 50 dB and one at 20 Db, and then turned up the volume so that the 20dB one is now 40 dB, then the 50 dB sound would now be 70 dB (the difference remains at 30 db independent of the volume). From a physics point of view this makes perfect sense to me since +3 dB represents a doubling in sound intensity. Thus when a sound is increased from, say, 70 dB to 73 dB, the intensity has doubled. (Note: doubling intensity is not the same as doubling volume. Going from one clarinet to two clarinets is a doubling of intensity but the overall volume only increases a little (by 3 dB), it does not double.)
If my above interpretation is correct, this means that peak-normalizing an audio file just brings it into a workable audio region. The relative difference between individual decibels is kept constant. Thus, any noise present is not made "worse" by comparison to the surrounding individual sounds.
Last edited by Noel96; 01/01/10 03:34 PM.
MY SONGS...Audiophile BIAB 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 235
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 235 |
Citaat:
Thanks abaudio. You've explained this very well.
Am I correct in saying that peak-normalizing can be compared to simply turning up the overall volume of a sound system? That is, everything gets lifted by the same amount but the relative differences between individual sounds remains the same. For example if I have two sounds, one and 50 dB and one at 20 Db, and then turned up the volume so that the 20dB one is now 40 dB, then the 50 dB sound would now be 70 dB (the difference remains at 30 db independent of the volume). From a physics point of view this makes perfect sense to me since +3 dB represents a doubling in sound intensity. Thus when a sound is increased from, say, 70 dB to 73 dB, the intensity has doubled.
If my above interpretation is correct, this means that peak-normalizing an audio file just brings it into a workable audio region. The relative difference between individual decibels is kept constant. Thus, any noise present is not made "worse" by comparison to the surrounding individual sounds.
Well if you would have one sound panned hard left and one hard right you could maybe say that, but of course if we speak of a mix of two sounds being equally boost it is the mix that gets a boost, not the individual sounds. Either you normalize a mix (of several sounds) or a single track. The idea is that you maintain the dynamics. In other words, if the dynamic range (lowest level to loudest level) of a track is 15dB , it still is 15dB after normalizing. So the peak as well as up to the smallest level got the same boost. If you say the intensity gets a boost, I would relate that to the power within a track (sorry, maybe I misunderstand that, English is still not my first language), but if that is what you mean, then you would boost the RMS. Peak normalizing relates to overall volume, while RMS normalizing relates to (average) power in the track.
Citaat:
Disagree. You always should consider the side effects of whatever action you're taking to treat a sonic problem. This is especially going to be a big fat problem with recorded real acoustic instruments. All kinds of noise, squeaks and stuff are going to get turned up as well. Then, you have a new problem on your hand, no matter how impressive your meter level looks afterwards. Of course, those noises aren't added to the track by Normalizing it, but now they're audible and more pronounced.Therefor it "could" sound worse very much so depending on the quality of the original recording. If there's a need to boost track that much, you might as well re-record the track if it's an option.
This completely makes no sense. If you have to move up your slider to make the recording audible, you move up those noises just as well with it. In that way fader adjustments have the same effect as normalizing. In case that the "soft" accoustic recording can stand out enough without normalizing then a normalized track can be corrected by pulling down the fader and with it the noises. The results stay, no matter what, the same. The only thing that makes sense in your statement is "re-recording a track" and that is exactly what I said before. And most of the times that will be the case if you have to boost a track alot. A track with too much noise is simply a badly recorded track. No matter what those noises are. Noise as in hiss is a recording on an inputlevel that was too low, or e.g. squeeks that are too loud could be prevented or minimized by a better positioning of the mic or just by using a different mic. As I said before, peak normalizing does nothing more, nothing less than "putting up the fader", equally for all frequencies, sound level, dynamics. Also note that all the time I talk about peak normalizing, not RMS...
I'll be back...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 20,586
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 20,586 |
Thanks, abaudio. I've edited my other post so as to better explain "doubling intensity". You've answered my question though. Thanks again, Noel P.S. You're English is 1,000,000 times better than my Dutch 
MY SONGS...Audiophile BIAB 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25
Enthusiast
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 25 |
Quote:
This completely makes no sense. If you have to move up your slider to make the recording audible, you move up those noises just as well with it. In that way fader adjustments have the same effect as normalizing. In case that the "soft" accoustic recording can stand out enough without normalizing then a normalized track can be corrected by pulling down the fader and with it the noises.
No way! What you said makes no sense to me neither. Normalizing a track has not the same effect as turning up the volume fader entirely, such that you could do one or the other,especially during the mixing stage. You'll find this in every text book in Bold: Nomralization degrades the quality of audio by adding degrading calculation and quantization distortion. Normalization DEGRADES and Worsens the quality of the Audio. Normalization should never be used to regulate song Levels in an Album.
It should be only used sparingly. Normalizing a track is not the same as turning up the volume fader by the same amount, although in both cases the loudness might sound identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 235
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 235 |
Yes so maybe we should stick with analogue recording.  At least there we won't meet quantisation errors. Quantisation simply is the process we got to live with if we work in the digital domain. If you record, it already starts with artifacts and errors to begin with since we always work with a certain bitrate, creating steps instead of a 100% smooth sound. We can only get as close to it as the technique lets us. That been said, in your theory I assume you would also not use 24 bit recording and convert it later to 16bits for creation of a CD? In fact the same goes for that, loads of quantization errors that need to be corrected. Ah! Of course, that is why they invented dither!  Just face it, any (destructive) editting process will have to deal with quantization errors and therefore, we only can relay on the quality of our equipment and software. The recordings therefore should be as good as possible, and higher levels (of course not clipping) gives less chances of quantization trouble. A too soft recording already has more errors in it's calculations already to begin with for that same matter. No matter how you look at it, a good mix stands or falls with a good start of right mic choices, well set input levels, gain staging, and good convertors. If all that is right, you minimize quantization errors, but it can never be prevented with the norms we record up to today. I did not want to add all this in a thread that asked about normalization, simply because it equals to starting a new topic. Therefore, as the original question has been answered already, without all the digital dillemma's that come from digital recording/mixing, I will make this my last post, to prevent me from getting into an endless discussion of how to make the right recordings without artifacts and lose track for the context of the original post ! (And even if this discussion would start somewhere else I likely In that case I would say now, record analogue and deal with tape distortion as a new point of discussion!)
I'll be back...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box for Windows
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Common. Sense.
There is no tool at our disposal that we should label as a "never use" tool.
What we must do is learn to discern when a certain tool, such as Normalization algo, is called for in a certain situation or not.
For the neophyte especially, having the Normalization button in there would indeed represent an easy way for them to get closer to the kind of results they desire. After all, I'm fairly certain that the routine got added to the BiaB arsenal in direct response to the many posts concerning the subject -- "why is my mp3 file not as loud as everybody else's?" -- and the like.
Normalization is now included with just about every mp3 maker and CD burner out anymore, and that is due to customer inputs of the very finest kind -- people preferred to spend their money on the one that had the Normalization feature.
Now, you can spend your lifetime telling the majority of folks that what they are doing is wrong and why, or you can just accept it.
If you don't like it, you do not have to do it.
I'm here to tell you that it is done in production facilities quite a lot anymore. very Audio Editing Suite software has some kind of Normalization algo in it, some more than one. They get used.
This whole Internet Forum "Normalization Bashing" thing started on the Cakewalk forum years ago and IMO is a direct result of a poorly implemented Normalization routine that was in certain earlyier versions of Cakewalk (Cakewalk 9 era or so) and even though Twelvetone Systems soon released a better bit of coding, the seeds were planted firmly.
The cold hard facts are that many people will be able to benefit from having the Normalization button available.
If you don't like it, simply don't use it. Use another method. There aren't any rules here AFAIC. And I'll bet the Rent Money that those arguing against Normalization would not be able to pass a true double blindfold test on the subject such as, "Which of the following soundfiles were Normalized and which weren't?" by simply listening to them and evaluating same. There are too many other contributing factors to consider. For example, I could make a recording in which I've pushed the Gain Staging going in and it would sound much the same as a Normalized file, but there would have been no Normalization routine applied to it. There are other examples I could cite.
Me, I take it light. Grain of salt and all that, this one ain't the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it™ either. *grin*
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XPro & Xtra Styles PAK Sets On Sale Now - Until May 15, 2026!
All of our XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs are on sale until May 15th, 2026!
It's the perfect time to expand your Band-in-a-Box® style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs. These additional styles for Band-in-a-Box® offer a wide range of genres designed to fit seamlessly into your projects. Each style is professionally arranged and mixed, helping enhance your songs while saving you time.
What are XPro Styles and Xtra Styles PAKs?
XPro Styles PAKs are styles that work with any version (Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition) of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). XPro Styles PAKS 1-10 includes 1,000 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 includes 3,700 styles (and 35 MIDI styles)!
The XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs are not included in any Band-in-a-Box® package.
The XPro Styles PAKs 1-10 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
The Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the Xtra Styles PAK Bundle for only $199 (reg. $349)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
Note: XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 19 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version as they require the RealTracks included in the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box today with XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAK Sets!
Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Mac Videos
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
Whether you're exploring new features, checking out the latest RealTracks or Style PAKs, this is your go-to guide for Band-in-a-Box® 2026.
Check out this forum post for "One Stop Shopping" of our Band-in-a-Box® 2026 Mac Videos!
Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Mac is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac is here and it is packed with major new features! There’s a new modern look, a GUI redesign to all areas of the program including toolbars, windows, workflow and more. There’s a Multi-view layout for organizing multiple windows. A standout addition is the powerful AI-Notes feature, which uses AI neural-net technology to transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI—entire mixes or individual instruments—making it easy to study, view, and play parts from any song. And that’s just the beginning—there are over 100 new features in this exciting release.
Along with version 2026, we've released an incredible lineup of new content! There's 202 new RealTracks, brand-new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two new RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac and save up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special offer—available until May 15, 2026. Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page to explore all available upgrade options.
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
Our Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK are loaded with amazing add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is included with most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac packages, but you can unlock even more—including 20 unreleased RealTracks—by upgrading to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49.
Holiday Weekend Hours
As we hop into the Easter weekend, here are our holiday hours:
April 3 (Good Friday): 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM PDT
April 4 (Saturday): Closed
April 5 (Easter Sunday): Closed
April 6 (Easter Monday): Open regular hours
Wishing you an egg-cellent weekend!
— Team PG
Update to Build 10 of RealBand® 2026 for Windows®!
If you're already using RealBand 2026 for Windows, download build 10 to get all the latest additions and enhancements.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® users: Build 904 now available!
If you're already using Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, make sure to grab the latest update! Build 904 is now available for download and includes the newest additions and enhancements from our team.
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows® users: Build 1237 is now available!
Already a Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Windows user? Stay up to date and download the build 1237 to get all the latest additions and enhancements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums57
Topics86,205
Posts801,934
Members40,068
| |
Most Online64,515
Apr 8th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean