Audiobus: Use your music apps together.

What is Audiobus?Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.

Download on the App Store

Audiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.

IOS Audio Normalizer (auv3 plugin) Are there any?

I have a lot of samples I want to normalize within projects mainly bm3. I know the sampler has nomalize options but was wondering if there are any plugins as would be quicker workflow while mixing .
Thanks in advance any info

Comments

  • Amazing Noises Limiter, is a limiter, saturator and normaliser, all in a single tool. And it excels in all three areas.

    It's also both AU and standalone/IAA.

  • @jonmoore said:
    Amazing Noises Limiter, is a limiter, saturator and normaliser, all in a single tool. And it excels in all three areas.

    It's also both AU and standalone/IAA.

    @jonmoore brilliant thanks

  • @stormbeats : Since real normalization is a two pass process, it isn't something one would normally use a plug-in to do since without scanning the whole audio file, there wouldn't be a way for the plugin to know how much gain to apply. Limiters and compressors don't normalize.

    Pretty much all audio editors and DAWs have a normalization command.

  • @espiegel123 said:
    @stormbeats : Since real normalization is a two pass process, it isn't something one would normally use a plug-in to do since without scanning the whole audio file, there wouldn't be a way for the plugin to know how much gain to apply. Limiters and compressors don't normalize.

    Pretty much all audio editors and DAWs have a normalization command.

    Agreed, but it's worth noting that Amazing Noise do make it clear in their documentation for Limiter that the plugin offers 'live' normalization and this can be used for effects that range "from very gentle volume attenuation to heavy distortion".

    I've found that it excels at both and @stormbeats did specifically ask for a plugin for quicker normalization workflows.

  • If you’re dealing with a lot (like 100’s +) of samples I would batch normalize them on desktop if you have access to one and bring them back in.

  • wimwim
    edited March 2019

    @jonmoore said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    @stormbeats : Since real normalization is a two pass process, it isn't something one would normally use a plug-in to do since without scanning the whole audio file, there wouldn't be a way for the plugin to know how much gain to apply. Limiters and compressors don't normalize.

    Pretty much all audio editors and DAWs have a normalization command.

    Agreed, but it's worth noting that Amazing Noise do make it clear in their documentation for Limiter that the plugin offers 'live' normalization and this can be used for effects that range "from very gentle volume attenuation to heavy distortion".

    I've found that it excels at both and @stormbeats did specifically ask for a plugin for quicker normalization workflows.

    Technically that isn’t normalization IMO. Normalization, as I’ve always understood it, is scanning an entire file, determining the gain needed to raise the highest point eak to 0db and then applying that gain uniformly across the whole file. If there is a zero dB peak already in the file then nothing happens. There is no distortion involved.

    What they’re calling normalization is really limiting, though maybe with just a long look ahead. I’m sure they’re not scanning a full 20 minute audio file ahead of the playhead, especially since there’s no way way a host is feeding that to them in the first place.

    That’s a useful feature, but not normalization in the normal usage of the word.

    Still ... had to buy it. I’m such an app slut. 😂

  • @T4H said:
    If you’re dealing with a lot (like 100’s +) of samples I would batch normalize them on desktop if you have access to one and bring them back in.

    @T4H good suggestion but the files are already in projects and backed up i. Dropbox etc So good old Audioshare it is for Normalizing before importing to my iOS Samplers in the future. Its mostly my old beats done on MPC and recorded in Pro Tools gain staged at -18db/ =0db on analogue VU’s bit too low volume though. Now the challenge to find an iOS Batch Convertor..maybe one day Audioshare.

  • Excuse my ignorance.. Lol
    But limiting is when you take audio and decide where you want the volume to rest... Like set it between a range and it either boosts the volume or drops it ???

  • @stormbeats : @wim is correct about what Normalization is. That isn't to say that the plugin isn't good for gain changing but that is different from normalizing...even if the developer calls it normalizing.

  • Check out FAC maxima. Adds a little extra sauce to anything. I think it’s as close as you can get to normalizing a channel pre mix down.

  • I'm not disagreeing with anything anyone is saying ref true normalisation. I was simply highlighting an option that met @stormbeats original request. As I mentioned in the other thread on saturation plugins the other day, I prefer using Limiter with a light touch. The only time I engage the 'normalization' option is to completely crush the source material and parallel process it with the uncompressed source (but that's a rare creative execution)

    As it happens I tend to render stems somewhere between -12dB and -6dB max. I'm not a fan of traditional normalisation as I'm happier with a subtle amount of saturation and plenty of headroom. Pretty much standard fare gain staging.

  • @jonmoore said:
    I'm not disagreeing with anything anyone is saying ref true normalisation. I was simply highlighting an option that met @stormbeats original request. As I mentioned in the other thread on saturation plugins the other day, I prefer using Limiter with a light touch. The only time I engage the 'normalization' option is to completely crush the source material and parallel process it with the uncompressed source (but that's a rare creative execution)

    As it happens I tend to render stems somewhere between -12dB and -6dB max. I'm not a fan of traditional normalisation as I'm happier with a subtle amount of saturation and plenty of headroom. Pretty much standard fare gain staging.

    I grabbed it after your reply in the saturation thread, it does good work!

  • edited March 2019

    Dudes Lets not have too much disagreement on Normalzing. Its just not very Normal haha

  • Let’s just call it Unnormal Normalisation :)
    @wim it could be they’re using quantum technology & look into the future, but apart from that you’re 100% correct.

  • Hey all, I wasn’t trying to be picky about terms, only to point out mainly what normalization is. The critical part being that normalization imparts no character. It’s just the same as turning up a fader accurately so the audio reaches but never exceeds zero dB.

    I’m happy that @jonmoore pointed out Limiter. I can’t wait to try it out on something.

  • @wim said:
    Hey all, I wasn’t trying to be picky about terms, only to point out mainly what normalization is. The critical part being that normalization imparts no character. It’s just the same as turning up a fader accurately so the audio reaches but never exceeds zero dB.

    I’m happy that @jonmoore pointed out Limiter. I can’t wait to try it out on something.

    @wim no worries you made some valid points

  • @wim i have had Limter for a while but found it made too much change to my mixes. Master Record is the best ive heard. None of my desktop or iOS Limiters can compete. The dev told me Auv is in his plans

  • @reasOne said:
    Excuse my ignorance.. Lol
    But limiting is when you take audio and decide where you want the volume to rest... Like set it between a range and it either boosts the volume or drops it ???

    Limiting generally refers to setting a maximum volume threshold and an amount of gain to apply. The limiter then applies the gain but limits the maximum volume to the threshold that you selected.

    There are many approaches that hardware and software limiters take -- they are often used to maximize apparent volume without obvious distortion. If you are into mixing, it is worth doing a little research about the various uses and abuses of limiters and compressors.

    Normalization is a totally different thing. Normalization is simply a process where you specify your target maximum amplitude and the software scans the audio file and determines how much gain should be applied (uniformly) to the file to achieve that target volume. It doesn't change the dynamic range of the material just the maximum volume and won't introduce distortion.

    Limiting and compression are all about altering dynamic range -- and can be subtle or not.

  • Try AudioMaster in the effects slot or standalone.
    https://itunes.apple.com/developer/future-moments/id895157892

  • The big problem I have with normalizing is that it can teach bad production habits. Beginners relate normalizing to loudness. They end up with every audio loop, audio stem, percussion sample etc peaking at zero dB and then mix into a limiter/maximizer or such like. And that more often than not ends up in a situation where everything sounds a mushy mess, even with very few channels of audio, and the combined percieved volume is still relatively quiet.

    As has been mentioned already, normalizing simply raises the volume of everything so that the highest peak doesn't clip.

    I've always thought than managing compression and saturation are far more important when it comes to understanding the percieved volume of a track (maybe that come from a background of recording to tape). I'm working on a remix this afternoon that's a prime example of how things can appear counter intuitive. As you can see in the screengrab, I've sub mixed the core of the instrumentation with buss compression and limiting. But all of the weight comes from the 909 kick (which I play then mute 2 bars at a time). The size of the kick waveform and it's relatively low peaking level belies it's importance to the overall balance of the track. This isn't intended as some kind of production 'hot tip', it just seems relevent to the conversation in this thread thus far.

    https://d.pr/a/MXvPwu
    (open in a new tab)

  • There really is no need to normalise in the digital world. I would only do it on individual files if your gonna do it. And Check them. Never batch normalise. An algorithm cannot normalise every file successfully. It will smash the shit out of some. Also be careful of apps like that fac maximiser they will lift the noise floor just as much as as they help with gain.
    As long as the file is clean and clear you shouldn’t need to normalise these days.

  • @AVX said:
    There really is no need to normalise in the digital world. I would only do it on individual files if your gonna do it. And Check them. Never batch normalise. An algorithm cannot normalise every file successfully. It will smash the shit out of some. Also be careful of apps like that fac maximiser they will lift the noise floor just as much as as they help with gain.
    As long as the file is clean and clear you shouldn’t need to normalise these days.

    Not to belabor the point, but as others have pointed out, Normalizing is a process where a file is scanned for its peak level and that peak is raised to the target level (typically 0db or thereabouts). The process does not alter the sound other than raise the level; the dynamics are retained. True Normalization will not "smash" a sound.
    Now, applying a fixed gain boost with limiting to a target value will affect the dynamic range and can smash sounds to oblivion, but that isn't real Normalization.

  • @AVX said:
    There really is no need to normalise in the digital world. I would only do it on individual files if your gonna do it. And Check them. Never batch normalise. An algorithm cannot normalise every file successfully. It will smash the shit out of some. Also be careful of apps like that fac maximiser they will lift the noise floor just as much as as they help with gain.
    As long as the file is clean and clear you shouldn’t need to normalise these days.

    True normalization won't squash anything. What you say is true of many other processes, but a competent normalization algorithm shouldn't havy any impact on dynamic range, frequency content of phase.

    I'm not advocating normalizing everything, I've not run into a case where a decent app's normalize function degraded the file.

  • edited March 2019

    @espiegel123 said:

    @AVX said:
    There really is no need to normalise in the digital world. I would only do it on individual files if your gonna do it. And Check them. Never batch normalise. An algorithm cannot normalise every file successfully. It will smash the shit out of some. Also be careful of apps like that fac maximiser they will lift the noise floor just as much as as they help with gain.
    As long as the file is clean and clear you shouldn’t need to normalise these days.

    True normalization won't squash anything. What you say is true of many other processes, but a competent normalization algorithm shouldn't havy any impact on dynamic range, frequency content of phase.

    I'm not advocating normalizing everything, I've not run into a case where a decent app's normalize function degraded the file.

    I’ve normalised files in Audio share that were squashed to bits. I know they were .

  • I avoid normalisation to the point of belligerence!

    Compression, limiting and saturation on the otherhand have a purpose. And I'm not talking about squashing the life out of everything. They're tools to manage dynamic range - too little dynamic range and things become fatiguing very quickly. You can't judge the quiet from the loud without contrast.

  • wimwim
    edited March 2019

    Normalizing everything doesn’t make sense to me. Generally when I save loops, or get samples from somewhere more often than not they’re intentionally at sensible relative volumes. I’d end up mixing them down anyway. I don’t see the point.

    Drum loops are somewhat of an exception. Mine usually have a snare peak that makes sense to have at the about same level between samples.

    The other thing about normalizing is you’re almost always going to end up attenuating it with a fader anyway. If all samples are normalized and peaks hit at the same time then the master is going to go over 0db. So I kinda don’t get the point other than for convenience when auditioning similar samples where you’re swapping them in and out.

  • @wim said:
    Normalizing everything doesn’t make sense to me. Generally when I save loops, or get samples from somewhere more often than not they’re intentionally at sensible relative volumes. I’d end up mixing them down anyway. I don’t see the point.

    Drum loops are somewhat of an exception. Mine usually have a snare peak that makes sense to have at the about same level between samples.

    The other thing about normalizing is you’re almost always going to end up attenuating it with a fader anyway. If all samples are normalized and peaks hit at the same time then the master is going to go over 0db. So I kinda don’t get the point other than for convenience when auditioning similar samples where you’re swapping them in and out.

    I agree mostly. For sample sets, it can be very useful in order to help samples play at similar volumes without requiring a lot of tweaking of the instrument. Also, good normalize algos will give an option as to what to normalize to. I have been in the habit when normalizing audio to do it to a level below maximum gain for any audio that will potentially have effects applied to it.

    While I agree that people probably tend to normalize when they don't need to. There is absolutely nothing about normalizing source tracks that prevents one from having rich dynamic range. Normalizing should just change the level that the file plays at and should not change the dynamic range. One can set the volume fader low on a normalized track.

    Just to be clear, I concur that people tend to oversquash tracks and don't appreciate real dynamic range -- but the main culprits there are overuse of the sophisticated limiters that exist these days that let you squeeze the dynamic range to nothing without the horrible artifacts that discouraged overuse in the pre-Waves L1 days.

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @it.

    While I agree that people probably tend to normalize when they don't need to. There is absolutely nothing about normalizing source tracks that prevents one from having rich dynamic range. Normalizing should just change the level that the file plays at and should not change the dynamic range. One can set the volume fader low on a normalized track.

    Just to be clear, I concur that people tend to oversquash tracks and don't appreciate real dynamic range -- but the main culprits there are overuse of the sophisticated limiters that exist these days that let you squeeze the dynamic range to nothing without the horrible artifacts that discouraged overuse in the pre-Waves L1 days.

    The point wasn't that normalising effects dynamic range, it's that people often mistakenly relate normalisation to loudness and that can lead to a misunderstanding of compression, limiting and saturation.

    There was a trend around 10 years ago for massive drum machine libraries where the seller would list all the outboard gear they'd used to create the samples. 3000 909 kicks to audition where each and every one was compressed within an inch of its life! You no doubt could build a slamming beat, but there was no dynamic range left for the instrumentation... :)

    Normalisation can mean something in the context of a sample library if it's created neutrally and with plenty of headroom, but that rarely exists in the modern world where plugin developers load the kit with 'punchy' samples. The greater the perceived volume, the more likely the sample is to be included in the distribution. The high quality sample library creators do take special precaution to creating a 'processing neutral' library, but they're a very small percentage of the marketplace.

  • You guys are not “Normal” iam joking thanks everyone for the input :-)

Sign In or Register to comment.