How to -really- normalize ?

Apr 7, 2007 at 6:02pm

How to -really- normalize ?

An oscillator. 4 waveforms. Measured with peakamp~, sine = 1., tri =
0.49, pulse = 0.49, saw = 0.69… How to boost the signal always to 1. ?
Normalize~ doesn’t work because of the ‘reset’ message you have to send
(sometimes it even doesn’t change anything), tap.normalize~ is a wahwah
/ lfo style effect, nothing helpfull in the bennies, nor the jimmies,
nor in any-ies. I made my own dirty kitchen patch to get some results
but i really wonder if there is a clean way (abstraction, external…)
to do this job, RMS and / or peak…

thanks in advance

best wishes

f.e

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
> >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

#31250
Apr 7, 2007 at 7:04pm

Try tl.balance~.

Best,
Trond

f.e wrote:
> An oscillator. 4 waveforms. Measured with peakamp~, sine = 1., tri =
> 0.49, pulse = 0.49, saw = 0.69… How to boost the signal always to 1. ?
> Normalize~ doesn’t work because of the ‘reset’ message you have to send
> (sometimes it even doesn’t change anything), tap.normalize~ is a wahwah
> / lfo style effect, nothing helpfull in the bennies, nor the jimmies,
> nor in any-ies. I made my own dirty kitchen patch to get some results
> but i really wonder if there is a clean way (abstraction, external…)
> to do this job, RMS and / or peak…
>
> thanks in advance
>
> best wishes
>
> f.e

#101246
Apr 7, 2007 at 8:10pm

Isn’t this what we call a compressor/expander? With an inifinite ratio in your case..

Mattijs

Quote: f.e wrote on Sat, 07 April 2007 20:02
—————————————————-
> An oscillator. 4 waveforms. Measured with peakamp~, sine = 1., tri =
> 0.49, pulse = 0.49, saw = 0.69… How to boost the signal always to 1. ?
> Normalize~ doesn’t work because of the ‘reset’ message you have to send
> (sometimes it even doesn’t change anything), tap.normalize~ is a wahwah
> / lfo style effect, nothing helpfull in the bennies, nor the jimmies,
> nor in any-ies. I made my own dirty kitchen patch to get some results
> but i really wonder if there is a clean way (abstraction, external…)
> to do this job, RMS and / or peak…
>
> thanks in advance
>
> best wishes
>
> f.e
> —
> f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
> > >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
> > >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|
>
—————————————————-

#101247
Apr 7, 2007 at 10:25pm

> > Normalize~ doesn’t work because of the ‘reset’ message you have to send
> >

well “normalizing” is nonrealtime by definition, if you want
something similar in realtime you will always need some kind
of “reset” – or a permanent process such as in a compressor.

#101248
Apr 8, 2007 at 12:01am

I think you should just use a hard limiter or compressor and then maybe turn it up…. If you have the bennies I think limit3~ is pretty good. Otherwise, as said before, just record and then do non realtime normalize after.

#101249
Apr 8, 2007 at 12:37am

wouldn’t it work if you just keep an account of the peak amplitudes of
your component wave forms and then multiply by a scaler in your way
out??

that is if you have three oscilators with peak amplitudes 0.4, 0.5 and
0.6 (adjusted with a *~ each), total peak amp 1.5, multiply(*~) by
0.66 and you get 1?? of course phase and frequency differences could
give you a total peak amp of less than 1.5, but it should work i
think…

J

On 4/7/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
>
> I think you should just use a hard limiter or compressor and then maybe turn it up…. If you have the bennies I think limit3~ is pretty good. Otherwise, as said before, just record and then do non realtime normalize after.
>
>
> –
> -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-
>


Jaime E Oliver LR

joliver@ucsd.edu
http://www.realidadvisual.org/jaimeoliver
www-crca.ucsd.edu/
http://www.realidadvisual.org

8693 Via Mallorca No. 19
La Jolla, CA 92037
USA

#101250
Apr 8, 2007 at 7:19am

#101251
Apr 8, 2007 at 7:27am

#101252
Apr 8, 2007 at 7:35am

#101253
Apr 8, 2007 at 12:51pm

This looks like a lovely set of objects but not yet UB?

On 4/8/07 3:35 AM, “Trond Lossius” wrote:

> Using the level of one signal to balance another is discussed in
> “Computer Music” by Jerse and Dodge. My object tl.balance~ is based on
> the algorithm provided there.
>
> Best,
> Trond

Cheers
Gary Lee Nelson
Oberlin College
http://www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson

#101254
Apr 8, 2007 at 5:59pm

No, unfortunately. I get a intel-based computer in a week or so, so the
motivation for porting to UB is increasing by the day… ;-)

I hope to have it done in the next two months. I have only a few
externals ported so far.

Best,
Trond

Gary Lee Nelson wrote:
> This looks like a lovely set of objects but not yet UB?
>
>> Using the level of one signal to balance another is discussed in
>> “Computer Music” by Jerse and Dodge. My object tl.balance~ is based on
>> the algorithm provided there.
>>

#101255
Apr 8, 2007 at 9:05pm

#101256
Apr 8, 2007 at 10:51pm

even if not exactly what you’re looking for, this might be useful as
it will normalize your signal if it is greater than 1.

_g

On 7 avr. 07, at 20:02, f.e wrote:

> An oscillator. 4 waveforms. Measured with peakamp~, sine = 1., tri
> = 0.49, pulse = 0.49, saw = 0.69… How to boost the signal always
> to 1. ? Normalize~ doesn’t work because of the ‘reset’ message you
> have to send (sometimes it even doesn’t change anything),
> tap.normalize~ is a wahwah / lfo style effect, nothing helpfull in
> the bennies, nor the jimmies, nor in any-ies. I made my own dirty
> kitchen patch to get some results but i really wonder if there is a
> clean way (abstraction, external…) to do this job, RMS and / or
> peak…
>
> thanks in advance
>
> best wishes
>
> f.e
> —
> f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
>> >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
>> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|
>

#101257
Apr 8, 2007 at 11:22pm

On Apr 8, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Trond Lossius wrote:
> No, unfortunately. I get a intel-based computer in a week or so, so
> the motivation for porting to UB is increasing by the day… ;-)

Glad to hear it. FWIW, I recompiled a few of your butterworth filter
objects from the included source. I needed them for an older piece I
was performing. Worked without a hitch.

Here’s wishing you a speedy re-compile.
——————-
Nathan Wolek, PhD — nwolek@stetson.edu
Assistant Professor of Music Technology
Stetson University – DeLand, FL

http://www.nathanwolek.com

#101258

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.