R128GAIN: An EBU R128 compliant loudness scanner |
![]() ![]() |
R128GAIN: An EBU R128 compliant loudness scanner |
Jan 15 2011, 22:18
Post
#126
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 171 Joined: 1-October 04 Member No.: 17420 |
::
Seems r128gain doesn't like 32-bit PCM .wav. CODE analyzing ... [01] The Honeymoon - Passive Aggressive.wav (1/1): -2.9 LUFS, -20.1 LU (peak: 1.447794: 1.6 dBFS) ALBUM: -2.9 LUFS, -20.1 LU (peak: 1.447794: 1.6 dBFS) writing ... [01] The Honeymoon - Passive Aggressive.wav (1/1) ... re-encoding via SoX ... wav: wave header missing FmtExt chunk done. Greetings ... :: |
|
|
|
Jan 15 2011, 22:52
Post
#127
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
Seems r128gain doesn't like 32-bit PCM .wav. Probably ... For a moment I thought about dropping the transcoding option to FLAC, and I think it would be best. R128GAIN is an EBU R128 compliant tagger and not the one in all solution. Instead you should
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2011, 22:57
Post
#128
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 171 Joined: 1-October 04 Member No.: 17420 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2011, 23:25
Post
#129
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2011, 23:45
Post
#130
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 171 Joined: 1-October 04 Member No.: 17420 |
BTW: Is FLAC able to transcode 32 bit WAVs? I'm not certain about it ... ::Yes, it is. :: What happens if you process the resulting FLAC with R128GAIN? You have my apologies. FLAC isn't able to transform too! (throwing an "unsupported format type") Thanks for the scanner, keep up the good work. Best regards ... :: |
|
|
|
Jan 16 2011, 14:26
Post
#131
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
v0.5 released
http://sourceforge.net/projects/r128gain/files/What's new?
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2011, 15:58
Post
#132
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13-January 09 From: Trondheim Member No.: 65515 |
Interesting. I did some tests with my own RMS tool (nicknamed K20RMS currently as it uses the K-System and K-20 headroom but with a Z weighting "flat filter" aka plain RMS).
Using the same test suit as R128 http://r128gain.sourceforge.net/ I get the following: CODE K20RMS v1.0 E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\1kHz Sine -20 LUFS-16bit.wav Within 1dB (+/- 0.5dB) and peak is 0.0 dBFS or less. Gain adjustment is not advised in this case. Title RMS: -19.93 dBFS (0.1008560, 83.07 dBSPL) Title Peak: -19.94 dBFS (0.1007385) Title Dynamic Range: 0.03 dB (max RMS -19.91 dBFS, min RMS -19.94 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: -0.01 dB (0.9988354) Title Dynamic Energy: 0.02 dB (1.0019993) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: -0.07 dB (0.9915128) Title Modifier: -0.07 dB (0.9915128) Title Final Peak: -20.01 dBFS (0.0998835) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\1kHz Sine -26 LUFS-16bit.wav Title RMS: -25.90 dBFS (0.0506862, 77.10 dBSPL) Title Peak: -25.93 dBFS (0.0505066) Title Dynamic Range: 0.04 dB (max RMS -25.88 dBFS, min RMS -25.93 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: -0.03 dB (0.9964557) Title Dynamic Energy: 0.02 dB (1.0024331) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 5.90 dB (1.9729222) Title Modifier: 5.90 dB (1.9729222) Title Final Peak: -20.03 dBFS (0.0996456) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\1kHz Sine -40 LUFS-16bit.wav Title RMS: -39.96 dBFS (0.0100410, 63.04 dBSPL) Title Peak: -39.78 dBFS (0.0102539) Title Dynamic Range: 0.03 dB (max RMS -39.95 dBFS, min RMS -39.98 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 0.18 dB (1.0212016) Title Dynamic Energy: 0.02 dB (1.0020251) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 19.96 dB (9.9591475) Title Modifier: 19.96 dB (9.9591475) Title Final Peak: -19.82 dBFS (0.1021202) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-1-16bit.wav Title RMS: -22.91 dBFS (0.0714933, 80.09 dBSPL) Title Peak: -22.94 dBFS (0.0713196) Title Dynamic Range: 0.03 dB (max RMS -22.90 dBFS, min RMS -22.93 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: -0.02 dB (0.9975703) Title Dynamic Energy: 0.01 dB (1.0016830) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 2.91 dB (1.3987327) Title Modifier: 2.91 dB (1.3987327) Title Final Peak: -20.02 dBFS (0.0997570) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-2-16bit.wav Title RMS: -32.94 dBFS (0.0225409, 70.06 dBSPL) Title Peak: -32.75 dBFS (0.0230408) Title Dynamic Range: 0.03 dB (max RMS -32.93 dBFS, min RMS -32.95 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 0.19 dB (1.0221772) Title Dynamic Energy: 0.01 dB (1.0015823) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 12.94 dB (4.4363842) Title Modifier: 12.94 dB (4.4363842) Title Final Peak: -19.81 dBFS (0.1022177) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-3-16bit.wav Title RMS: -27.53 dBFS (0.0420017, 75.47 dBSPL) Title Peak: -22.92 dBFS (0.0714722) Title Dynamic Range: 17.08 dB (max RMS -22.91 dBFS, min RMS -39.99 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 4.62 dB (1.7016501) Title Dynamic Energy: 4.62 dB (1.7021379) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 7.53 dB (2.3808570) Title Modifier: 7.53 dB (2.3808570) Title Final Peak: -15.38 dBFS (0.1701650) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-4-16bit.wav Title RMS: -29.63 dBFS (0.0329802, 73.37 dBSPL) Title Peak: -23.00 dBFS (0.0708008) Title Dynamic Range: 51.77 dB (max RMS -22.82 dBFS, min RMS -74.58 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 6.64 dB (2.1467686) Title Dynamic Energy: 6.82 dB (2.1926796) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 9.63 dB (3.0321255) Title Modifier: 9.63 dB (3.0321255) Title Final Peak: -13.36 dBFS (0.2146769) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-5-16bit.wav Title RMS: -22.94 dBFS (0.0713034, 80.06 dBSPL) Title Peak: -19.93 dBFS (0.1008301) Title Dynamic Range: 6.03 dB (max RMS -19.92 dBFS, min RMS -25.95 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 3.01 dB (1.4140999) Title Dynamic Energy: 3.02 dB (1.4154997) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 2.94 dB (1.4024584) Title Modifier: 2.94 dB (1.4024584) Title Final Peak: -16.99 dBFS (0.1414100) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-6-5channels-16bit.wav Title RMS: -27.19 dBFS (0.0436962, 75.81 dBSPL) Title Peak: -24.00 dBFS (0.0630798) Title Dynamic Range: 0.00 dB (max RMS -27.19 dBFS, min RMS -27.19 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 3.19 dB (1.4435992) Title Dynamic Energy: 0.00 dB (1.0000000) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 7.19 dB (2.2885273) Title Modifier: 7.19 dB (2.2885273) Title Final Peak: -16.81 dBFS (0.1443599) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-6-6channels-WAVEEX-16bit.wav Title RMS: -27.19 dBFS (0.0436962, 75.81 dBSPL) Title Peak: -24.00 dBFS (0.0630798) Title Dynamic Range: 0.00 dB (max RMS -27.19 dBFS, min RMS -27.19 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 3.19 dB (1.4435992) Title Dynamic Energy: 0.00 dB (1.0000000) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 7.19 dB (2.2885273) Title Modifier: 7.19 dB (2.2885273) Title Final Peak: -16.81 dBFS (0.1443599) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-7_seq-3342-5-24bit.wav Title RMS: -22.59 dBFS (0.0742564, 80.41 dBSPL) Title Peak: -8.91 dBFS (0.3583316) Title Dynamic Range: 13.72 dB (max RMS -16.88 dBFS, min RMS -30.60 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 13.67 dB (4.8255968) Title Dynamic Energy: 5.70 dB (1.9282742) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 2.59 dB (1.3466849) Title Modifier: 2.59 dB (1.3466849) Title Final Peak: -6.33 dBFS (0.4825597) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3341-8_seq-3342-6-24bit.wav Clipping caused by the gain, modifier was adjusted to protect peaks, volume will be lower than expected. Title RMS: -23.90 dBFS (0.0638479, 79.10 dBSPL) Title Peak: -2.87 dBFS (0.7182941) Title Dynamic Range: 31.36 dB (max RMS -11.96 dBFS, min RMS -43.31 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 21.02 dB (11.2500906) Title Dynamic Energy: 11.94 dB (3.9531405) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 3.90 dB (1.5662234) Title Modifier: 2.87 dB (1.3921874) Title Final Peak: 0.00 dBFS (1.0000000) Title Final RMS: -21.02 dBFS (0.0888882, 81.98 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3342-1-16bit.wav Title RMS: -22.41 dBFS (0.0757570, 80.59 dBSPL) Title Peak: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000061) Title Dynamic Range: 10.00 dB (max RMS -19.82 dBFS, min RMS -29.82 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 2.41 dB (1.3200905) Title Dynamic Energy: 2.60 dB (1.3484154) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 2.41 dB (1.3200099) Title Modifier: 2.41 dB (1.3200099) Title Final Peak: -17.59 dBFS (0.1320090) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3342-2-16bit.wav Title RMS: -16.63 dBFS (0.1473578, 86.37 dBSPL) Title Peak: -15.00 dBFS (0.1778259) Title Dynamic Range: 5.00 dB (max RMS -14.82 dBFS, min RMS -19.82 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 1.63 dB (1.2067628) Title Dynamic Energy: 1.82 dB (1.2326562) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: -3.37 dB (0.6786202) Title Modifier: -3.37 dB (0.6786202) Title Final Peak: -18.37 dBFS (0.1206763) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3342-3-16bit.wav Title RMS: -22.78 dBFS (0.0725930, 80.22 dBSPL) Title Peak: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000061) Title Dynamic Range: 20.00 dB (max RMS -19.82 dBFS, min RMS -39.81 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 2.78 dB (1.3776278) Title Dynamic Energy: 2.97 dB (1.4071872) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 2.78 dB (1.3775438) Title Modifier: 2.78 dB (1.3775438) Title Final Peak: -17.22 dBFS (0.1377628) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) E:\Downloads\Audio\audio tests\ebu-loudness-test-setv01\seq-3342-4-16bit.wav Title RMS: -26.53 dBFS (0.0471508, 76.47 dBSPL) Title Peak: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000061) Title Dynamic Range: 29.99 dB (max RMS -19.82 dBFS, min RMS -49.80 dBFS) Title Dynamic Headroom: 6.53 dB (2.1209822) Title Dynamic Energy: 6.72 dB (2.1664915) Title Gain ref -20dBFS/83dBSPL: 6.53 dB (2.1208527) Title Modifier: 6.53 dB (2.1208527) Title Final Peak: -13.47 dBFS (0.2120982) Title Final RMS: -20.00 dBFS (0.1000000, 83.00 dBSPL) Clipping caused by gain, modifier adjusted to protect peaks. Album RMS: -23.69 dBFS (0.0654086, 79.31 dBSPL) Album Peak: -2.87 dBFS (0.7182941) Album Dynamic Range: 62.62 dB (max -11.96 dBFS, min -74.58 dBFS) Album Dynamic Headroom: 20.81 dB (10.9816437) Album Dynamic Energy: 11.73 dB (3.8588116) Album Gain ref -20dBFS: 3.69 dB (1.5288506) Album Modifier: 2.87 dB (1.3921874) Album Final Peak: 0.00 dBFS (1.0000000) Album Final RMS: -20.81 dBFS (0.0910610, 82.19 dBSPL) As you can see R128 is much closer to RMS, and if you run the test suit through ReplayGain (foobar2000) you can see that RG89 is a tad more inconsistent, so R128 is looking pretty good so far. This post has been edited by greynol: Jan 16 2011, 19:19
Reason for edit: codebox, please use it in the future.
-------------------- "Normality exist in the minds of others, not mine!" - Rescator
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2011, 16:46
Post
#133
|
|
![]() WavPack Developer Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 1219 Joined: 3-January 02 From: San Francisco CA Member No.: 900 |
I have been following this with interest, but I would like to echo what the others are saying and suggest that changing the meaning of the existing ReplayGain tags would be a huge mistake. It breaks the (admittedly undocumented) ReplayGain specs and would instantly break all existing players and cause a lot of long-term confusion and frustration with users of ReplayGain (which is probably not what anyone wants).
If you want to have a different meaning to the tags that’s fine, but I think you should use different names in that case, like REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN_EBU, or something. What is the advantage of keeping the same tag names when the meaning has changed and the players will have to be modified to use them anyway? Players that want to take advantage of the new method can query the different names. You could still have the --transitional option to write out compatible tags, but having the default behavior be to break existing players makes no sense to me. It would be sad if this new and better scanner/tagger got a bad reputation because of this oversight. David |
|
|
|
Jan 16 2011, 18:18
Post
#134
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
You could still have the --transitional option to write out compatible tags, but having the default behavior be to break existing players makes no sense to me. It would be sad if this new and better scanner/tagger got a bad reputation because of this oversight. Just to give you another reason: The example above, Jethro Tull's "Budapest", taken from the original CD "Crest Of A Knafe" (no remaster), was not chosen by accident. The amplification and peak values are with respect to a pre-amp of 2 dB relative to -23 dBFS (EBU R128). If you consider a build-in "pre-amp" of 5 dB the play-back would be hopefully clipped by as much as 3 dB. EBU R128 is completely different than traditional ReplayGain. The people should know what they are doing. |
|
|
|
Jan 16 2011, 19:08
Post
#135
|
|
![]() Group: Developer Posts: 2983 Joined: 2-December 07 Member No.: 49183 |
QUOTE EBU R128 is completely different than traditional ReplayGain. From player's (h/w or s/w) point of view, no. They both calculate value of gain that player should apply to a track. |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2011, 12:18
Post
#136
|
|
![]() ReplayGain developer Group: Developer Posts: 4587 Joined: 5-November 01 From: Yorkshire, UK Member No.: 409 |
[*]Without "--transitional" you get EBU R128 compliant tags: Please be very careful what you write. EBU R128 doesn't define a tagging standard, so it's hard to see how any tags you write could be "compliant" with EBU R128.I think I know what you mean, but it's not exactly what you said. And I agree with bryant entirely. Cheers, David. This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Jan 17 2011, 12:19 |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2011, 13:09
Post
#137
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
[*]Without "--transitional" you get EBU R128 compliant tags: Please be very careful what you write. EBU R128 doesn't define a tagging standard, so it's hard to see how any tags you write could be "compliant" with EBU R128.I think I know what you mean, but it's not exactly what you said. To make it clear: You get instantan EBU R128 conformant playback by each player supporting RG tags. Nothing is broken. And I agree with bryant entirely. I will think about it till the next release. |
|
|
|
Jan 17 2011, 13:48
Post
#138
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 698 Joined: 6-March 10 Member No.: 78779 |
I think the "--transitional" mode is fine. You get exactly the same as what original ReplayGain delivers, just computed by a better loudness estimator.
But using the name "REPLAYGAIN_*" for new, incompatible R128 tags is really bad and would lead to a lot of confusion. This mode should not be the default! If at all, give it a "--babylon" switch, which is IMHO the most adequate description. I'd vote for writing "--transitional" (or traditional) tags as default and add an additional set of "R128_TRACK_GAIN" etc. tags for players, which want to follow R128 to the last word (I don't really see any practical benefit in comparison to traditional RG). This post has been edited by googlebot: Jan 17 2011, 14:29 |
|
|
|
Jan 23 2011, 17:30
Post
#139
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
v0.6 released
http://sourceforge.net/projects/r128gain/files/What's new?
This post has been edited by pbelkner: Jan 23 2011, 17:36 |
|
|
|
Jan 23 2011, 20:02
Post
#140
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 31-December 10 Member No.: 86953 |
Suuuuper !!!
Thank you very much ! Jean |
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 09:45
Post
#141
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 31-December 10 Member No.: 86953 |
BTW, working with the GUI, how can I convert to FLAC now?
Thank you Jean |
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 16:06
Post
#142
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 16:18
Post
#143
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 31-December 10 Member No.: 86953 |
ok thank you !
Thought I missed something (again) ;-) Jean |
|
|
|
Jan 24 2011, 22:06
Post
#144
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 171 Joined: 1-October 04 Member No.: 17420 |
::
First: Many thanks for this tool. I'm very happy with it. Now my question: Is it possible to implement an option for tagging (FLAC) files without copying them? [EDIT] Oh, and I get exactly the same results for --fast and --true-peak=off. Where's the difference of these two switches? [/EDIT] Greetings ... :: This post has been edited by Surfi: Jan 24 2011, 22:16 |
|
|
|
Jan 25 2011, 07:56
Post
#145
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 395 Joined: 13-June 10 Member No.: 81467 |
Now my question: Is it possible to implement an option for tagging (FLAC) files without copying them? Technically tagging only is the following anyway:
Oh, and I get exactly the same results for --fast and --true-peak=off. Where's the difference of these two switches? If you try this on contemporary over-compressed (hard limited) CDs you will observe inter-sample peaks up to 0.8 dBFS (which is impossible for sample peaks with a technical maximum of 0.0 dBFS). Currently there is no difference between these two options. They're just synonyms. This post has been edited by pbelkner: Jan 25 2011, 08:00 |
|
|
|
Jan 26 2011, 08:16
Post
#146
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4219 Joined: 15-December 02 Member No.: 4082 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 26 2011, 16:32
Post
#147
|
|
|
Winamp Developer Group: Developer Posts: 662 Joined: 17-July 05 From: Ashburn, VA Member No.: 23375 |
FYI - I did a comparison of ReplayGain and R128 (based on the libebur128 code in the other thread) and found -17.25 LU to be a good reference loudness level for R128 to match the 89dB reference level of ReplayGain.
More specifically, regression analysis indicated that the gain adjustment should actually be -17.5 - 1.05*R128 (e.g. an R128 value of -10LU would correspond to -8.55dB gain adjustment), but I don't like the idea of having the beta coefficient not be 1.0. This was done on a 45,000 track test library. |
|
|
|
Jan 26 2011, 17:20
Post
#148
|
|
![]() Group: Developer Posts: 2983 Joined: 2-December 07 Member No.: 49183 |
My small (~2000 tracks only) comparison of foo_r128scan vs. foo_rgscan:
http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/5396/rgr128.png |
|
|
|
Jan 26 2011, 17:37
Post
#149
|
|
|
Winamp Developer Group: Developer Posts: 662 Joined: 17-July 05 From: Ashburn, VA Member No.: 23375 |
My small (~2000 tracks only) comparison of foo_r128scan vs. foo_rgscan: http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/5396/rgr128.png foo_r128scan is using -18.0 - 1.0 * R128, so your finding of a 0.62dB difference corresponds fairly well with my proposal of -17.25 - 1.0 * R128 (your data would suggest -17.38 - 1.0 * R128). |
|
|
|
Jan 26 2011, 18:14
Post
#150
|
|
![]() Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 73 Joined: 20-July 02 From: Foster City, CA Member No.: 2685 |
This was done on a 45,000 track test library. My small (~2000 tracks only) comparison of foo_r128scan vs. foo_rgscan: I assume you both did the comparison in track mode and I am curious if the results are the same in album mode. Duh, I see now looking at lvqcl graphic is that it contains both track and album mode so I assume the result is the averaging of the two. I am still curious what the results are when just comparing track or album mode. Obviously I am not quite awake yet but now I see that lvqcl's result is based on track information. How does it compare to album and the averaging of the two? This post has been edited by spies: Jan 26 2011, 18:31 |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 11:11 |