Does Replay gain work differtly in Media monkey, Foobar and Media Monkey given 2 differnt Results Options

[jimmanningjr]

Hey Anyone,
For the past 2 years I have been using Media Monkey to Organize and play my music collection which is now about 42,000 tracks about 75% of my collection has Replay gain Values....I am making the switch over to Foobar2000 and was about to replay gain the other 25% with it (Foobar) when I discovered that for the same album I was getting 2 different values...and it is making me wonder does Media Monkey use a different algorithm or is there something I am overlooking...both are set to tag by ALBUM with the track value put in there also. Here are my results:

Miles Davis /Jack Johnson Soundtrack/
Trk1 Right Off -FOOBAR--Album Gain -1.97db Trk Gain -2.49db
Trk 2 Yesternow-FOOBAR Album Gain -1.97db Trk Gain -0.87db

Trk 1 Right Off Media monkey--Album Vol=-7.9db Trk Vol= -8.4db
Trk 2 Yesternow Media Monkey--Album Vol= -7.9db Trk Vol= - 6.8db

Could someone shed some light on this for me.
Thank You

[2Bdecided]

It was a proposed standard in July 2001.

I think a couple of the earliest tag-based implementations did use 83dB. I think one stubbornly does to this day (despite a request for them to change very early on). It doesn't to Album gain "properly" either... http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=49357.0

The very first apply-the-gain implementation (mp3gain) defaulted to 89dB early on.

Subsequently, AFAIK, all tag-based implementations used 89dB, and this became the de facto standard.


Here are some other ways the original proposal isn't reflected in what's in-use today:
* In the original proposal, there were proposals for how to store the ReplayGain values in tags for mp3 and wav. Some software uses these, but most software uses better solutions, and the tagging for other formats wasn't defined in the original proposal.
* The original proposal used the names "radio" and "audiophile" for track and album (for various reasons which seemed sensible at the time). These were changed to "track" and "album" - and everyone was far less confused!
* The original proposal didn't store the album peak, but it made sense to do so, so this was universally adopted AFAIK.


I don't think there is any sense in clinging to the idea that the original archived proposal is definitive, or version 1. It wasn't finished. See the ReplayGain threads from 2002 to see how much work was done afterwards. The result, i.e. what was widely adopted, is version 1. There isn't a version 2 (I tried once, but gave up).

It might make sense for someone to create a new document or website to reflect what is in use today. IMO the HA wiki is more than half way there.
I'm happy for someone to pop a note on the original proposal to say it's an archived website, and current information is in the wiki.

Cheers,
David.

[chrisjj]

Thanks David for that explanation.

I think a couple of the earliest tag-based implementations did use 83dB. I think one stubbornly does to this day (despite a request for them to change very early on).

J River.

I can see their point. For the proposed standard's ref_pink.wav, J River Media Jukebox 14 determines REPLAYGAIN_TRAIN_GAIN as 0dB. That is correct in accordance with the proposed standard:

http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/calibration.html
we send the pink noise signal through the ReplayGain program, and store the result (let's call it ref_Vrms). For every CD we process, the difference between the calculated value for that CD and ref_Vrms tells you how much you need to scale the signal in order to make it average 83dB.

The very first apply-the-gain implementation (mp3gain) defaulted to 89dB early on.

A major non-compliance with the proposed standard.

I don't think there is any sense in clinging to the idea that the original archived proposal is definitive, or version 1. It wasn't finished. See the ReplayGain threads from 2002 to see how much work was done afterwards.

Well, I suggest it is unrealistic to expect standards-respecting app developers to see let alone follow updates that aren't mentioned at the ostensible official location - http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/updates.html.

It might make sense for someone to create a new document or website to reflect what is in use today.

I suggest what is needed is a specification update. Published in the ostensibly official location, displacing the currently mis-leading proposal.

It should recognise there are V1 and V2 in the field so addresses the migration issue. I for one do not want updated apps to in future mis-interpret old RG values. I had enough of that kind of fun and games with MediaMoney chopping and changing its ratings storage!

I'm happy for someone to pop a note on the original proposal to say it's an archived website

Actually it isn't. Better I suggest to say that its specification has been superceded by another. And to hold off saying that until it is true!

This post has been edited by chrisjj: Sep 9 2010, 12:05