Olaf Marzocchi

My feedback

  1. 1,027 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    51 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Olaf Marzocchi commented  · 

    What you want is dynamic range compression, not normalisation. You could also do normalisation *at download time* (you need to scan the file and to set a preamp factor), even if most podcasts are already normalised.

  2. 537 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Olaf Marzocchi supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Olaf Marzocchi commented  · 

    I agree this feature is very needed for many podcasts. It is important to compress the dynamic range on a podcast basis: some podcasts do that already before releasing the episodes. It is also important to make sure that no clipping is introduced because it affects the listening experience heavily, while dynamic compression doesn't. Together with dynamic range compression you may want to introduce a separate voice fillet to equalise with a additional click specifically for voice content, without needing to go to the equaliser.
    Suggestion if feasible: maybe if you apply the amplification to the FFT coefficients before the iFFT you may save processing power, instead of doing the iFFT to have the audio wave followed by amplification. There are less FFT coefficients than audio samples in the final audio stream...

Feedback and Knowledge Base