How to -really- normalize ?


    Apr 07 2007 | 6:02 pm
    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|

    • Apr 07 2007 | 7:04 pm
      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
    • Apr 07 2007 | 8:10 pm
      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| > ----------------------------------------------------
    • Apr 07 2007 | 10:25 pm
      > > 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.
    • Apr 08 2007 | 12:01 am
      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.
    • Apr 08 2007 | 12:37 am
      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=- www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=- >
      -- Jaime E Oliver LR
      joliver@ucsd.edu www.realidadvisual.org/jaimeoliver www-crca.ucsd.edu/ www.realidadvisual.org
      8693 Via Mallorca No. 19 La Jolla, CA 92037 USA
    • Apr 08 2007 | 7:19 am
    • Apr 08 2007 | 7:35 am
    • Apr 08 2007 | 12:51 pm
      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 www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson
    • Apr 08 2007 | 5:59 pm
      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. >>
    • Apr 08 2007 | 10:51 pm
      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| >
    • Apr 08 2007 | 11:22 pm
      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