|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
12-06-2001, 12:22 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,606
|
Why do rippers always normalize the ripped track to 98%?
It seems like every ripper automatically normalizes a ripped track to 98%. What is the reasoning for this? Why not just leave it at 100%?
Just curious. |
|
|
|
12-06-2001, 09:43 PM
|
#2 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: East of Lake Michigan -- West of Lake Huron -- South of Lake Superior and North of civilization.
Posts: 2,219
  |
Allows for headroom and error correction. Plain and simple.
-Craig |
|
|
|
|
12-06-2001, 10:17 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,606
|
So after it's ripped, and there's no need to allow for headroom and error correction, is it OK to renormalize to 100% again? Would there be any negative effects to doing this?
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2001, 01:40 PM
|
#4 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: East of Lake Michigan -- West of Lake Huron -- South of Lake Superior and North of civilization.
Posts: 2,219
|
Yes and no. Do you really need that 2% of resolution? Can you, in all honesty, hear the difference? Wouldn't you rather keep the normalization at the same percentage generally used in the recording industry? But if you must, you can -- it's all digital. You're not really going to hurt much unless the ripped signal sucked in the first place.
-Craig Last edited by audiyoda; 12-07-2001 at 03:07 PM. |
|
|
|
|
12-07-2001, 02:47 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,606
|
ok. thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
