IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Does Replay gain work differtly in Media monkey, Foobar and Media Monkey given 2 differnt Results
2Bdecided
post Sep 9 2010, 11:13
Post #26


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisjj
post Sep 9 2010, 12:05
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 200
Joined: 17-February 08
Member No.: 51389



Thanks David for that explanation.

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
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.


QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
The very first apply-the-gain implementation (mp3gain) defaulted to 89dB early on.
A major non-compliance with the proposed standard.

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
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.

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
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! smile.gif

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
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! smile.gif

This post has been edited by chrisjj: Sep 9 2010, 12:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 9 2010, 12:55
Post #28


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Well, maybe somebody can do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE04KNFieRg

wink.gif


I learned a lot through doing ReplayGain. I've since sat on real standards bodies and been involved with real IPR. Nothing exciting, but still... there is a difference between something that's published by the IEC, and something that someone decides to post on the internet. De Facto standards end up being more important than what's written in the latter case.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisjj
post Sep 9 2010, 13:05
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 200
Joined: 17-February 08
Member No.: 51389



Agreed, but still if people want to take this forward, a real standard is better than the "de-facto" one that is not working well enough.

PS Nice song! Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisjj
post Sep 10 2010, 01:26
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 200
Joined: 17-February 08
Member No.: 51389



QUOTE (chrisjj @ Sep 9 2010, 12:05) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
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.

It is worth noting that JRiver Media Jukebox 14 t read/writes not the standard REPLAYGAIN_* fields, but its own JR/PEAKLEVEL, JR/REPLAYGAIN etc. This opt-out means its use of 83dB is not really a non-compliance with the defacto ReplayGain standard 89dB. Though arguably the app should not call what it does Replay Gain wink.gif

This post has been edited by chrisjj: Sep 10 2010, 01:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jimmanningjr
post Sep 14 2010, 00:43
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 5-August 10
From: Philly Pa USA
Member No.: 82832



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 07:55) *
Well, maybe somebody can do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE04KNFieRg

wink.gif


I learned a lot through doing ReplayGain. I've since sat on real standards bodies and been involved with real IPR. Nothing exciting, but still... there is a difference between something that's published by the IEC, and something that someone decides to post on the internet. De Facto standards end up being more important than what's written in the latter case.

Cheers,
David.


First to "2bdecided" thank you so much for all the WORK you have done on "Replay Gain" now and in the past...Thank you for downloading MM and checking things out....If anyone wants the opinion of yer average Music Freak/Computer Geek here it is: Replay Gain is cool!!!Especially so with the current LOUDNESS wars going on . It deserves to be standardized across the board and YES I believe there should be an UP to date Web site or Wiki with ALL of the important info explained in plain English (ie. Not just Geek Speak) Again thank you ,when I started this topic I never dreamed it would still be going 10 days latter with the developer of replay gain contributing. wink.gif smile.gif wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
load97
post Oct 13 2010, 08:30
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 13-October 10
From: Minneapolis
Member No.: 84582



I had to register here to say thank as well! I am a MM user for the last 3-4 years and was curious as to what(if any) differences were with MM, Replay Gain/MP3 Gain.

I had posted a question on MM forums right before we left for Hawaii, and my question branched off a bit. Here: http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic...f=1&t=52653

David's Q & A session on this thread seemed to answer most of my questions as well. Although, can MP3 Gain(Level Track Volume in MM) be done more than once to a track or is it better to go to a different db level from the original untouched tracks? I was thinking of going from 89db currently to 93db.

Thanks, and thanks to the OP for starting this thread!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 13 2010, 10:27
Post #33


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (load97 @ Oct 13 2010, 08:30) *
... can MP3 Gain(Level Track Volume in MM) be done more than once to a track or is it better to go to a different db level from the original untouched tracks?
With mp3s, there's no advantage to going back to the original tracks. Unless something goes wrong (software bug), or you use utterly stupid numbers (a target of several 100 dBs), you'll get the same result going straight to 93dB as you will applying a different target level first.

One caveat: if you use Album Gain for the latest gain change, then you must have also used Album Gain for any previous gain changes. If you apply Track gain first, and then try to apply Album again, it won't be right. You'll have to go back to the original files to get the right Album gain applied (unless the application stores "undo" information when you apply the Track Gain first time, and uses it when calculating the Album gain - I don't know if this happens or not).

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2014 - 09:41