The DR Analysis of Tracks / Image don't match, was: "Weirdest Thing Ever" |
![]() ![]() |
The DR Analysis of Tracks / Image don't match, was: "Weirdest Thing Ever" |
Mar 31 2012, 03:28
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 30-March 12 Member No.: 98220 |
First, let me introduce myself, as I've been lurking around the forum before, but never get registered until now
I'm guess I'm sorry for that. Anyway, this is the matter... I have a 16-track album in FLAC format and I decided to make a DR analysis of them (like I always do, since I have around 300+ FLAC albums). QUOTE Software used: Foobar2000 1.1.11 Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 CUETools 2.1.2a FLAC: libFLAC 1.2.1 (UTC 2007-09-17) So, I drag-and-drop the tracks into Foobar playlist, right click over the playlist > Contents > Dynamic Range Meter At the end, Foobar displayed the following window: ![]() ...and the following log: CODE foobar2000 1.1.11 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 log date: 2012-03-30 9:55:54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analyzed: Album -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR12 -2.28 dB -17.67 dB 1:36 01-Track 01 DR4 -0.21 dB -6.37 dB 5:56 02-Track 02 DR5 -0.20 dB -9.40 dB 1:19 03-Track 03 DR4 -0.21 dB -5.34 dB 4:24 04-Track 04 DR11 -0.33 dB -15.82 dB 1:01 05-Track 05 DR3 -0.21 dB -5.66 dB 4:52 06-Track 06 DR6 -0.20 dB -8.42 dB 5:15 07-Track 07 DR15 -1.19 dB -19.38 dB 1:48 08-Track 08 DR4 -0.20 dB -6.89 dB 3:37 09-Track 09 DR11 -3.22 dB -25.33 dB 3:59 10-Track 10 DR9 -1.24 dB -17.72 dB 1:01 11-Track 11 DR5 -0.20 dB -6.47 dB 4:40 12-Track 12 DR12 -0.20 dB -16.67 dB 2:48 13-Track 13 DR12 -0.21 dB -18.80 dB 0:46 14-Track 14 DR4 -0.21 dB -6.11 dB 3:32 15-Track 15 DR8 -0.21 dB -14.49 dB 8:20 16-Track 16 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 16 Official DR value: DR8 Samplerate: 44100 Hz Channels: 2 Bits per sample: 16 Bitrate: 482 kbps Codec: FLAC ================================================================================ (the tracks with high DR value are just intros, spoken parts, skits, interludes, etc...) Then, with the CUE + FLAC tracks, I made a WAV Image using CUE Tools. After finished, just to check I run a DR analysis again... with very strange results. After finished, Foobar displayed the following window: ![]() ...and the following log: CODE foobar2000 1.1.11 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 log date: 2012-03-30 10:10:51 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Statistics for: ?-Image Number of samples: 145233060 Duration: 54:53 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Left Right Peak Value: -0.20 dB --- -0.20 dB Avg RMS: -8.04 dB --- -8.65 dB DR channel: 4.00 dB --- 4.56 dB -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official DR Value: DR4 Samplerate: 44100 Hz Channels: 2 Bits per sample: 16 Bitrate: 1411 kbps Codec: PCM ================================================================================ What the heck... So I run a RG scan. First from the FLACK tracks: (yes, the album suffer from Loudness War) ...and then another from the WAV Image: Same loudness. So definitely there's no kind of limiting whatsoever: both sounds and (clearly) are, without a doubt, the same. Just to be clear, in case some track(s) were repeated or missing during analysis, I did this like four times,... same results. This actually happened yesterday, so I thought maybe it could something that might get fixed when restaring the PC or something. I came today and got the same results. Besides, I updated Foobat long ago (weeks, maybe over and month), any problems so far, so it's discarded. Frankly, it's the first time I have no clue what's going on. I hope you guys can help to find the answer. Greetings. |
|
|
|
Mar 31 2012, 07:52
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 582 Joined: 12-May 06 From: Colorado, USA Member No.: 30694 |
I would use the developer's feedback form at http://www.jokhan.demon.nl/DynamicRange/index.htm to ask about this. Maybe just point him to this thread.
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2012, 12:12
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 306 Joined: 2-July 10 Member No.: 81991 |
This might have something to do with the "Grouping" option of foo_dynamic_range. Try checking all the boxes.
|
|
|
|
Apr 2 2012, 17:44
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 58 Joined: 11-July 09 From: Lorraine, France Member No.: 71375 |
I don't think there are any problems, you are analyzing a whole image without a cuesheet to virtually split it into tracks and the dynamic range meter takes somehow into account loud parts only. Thus, this hardly surprising if you get a low result since the whole image contains hypercompressed passages. When the album is split (as files or with a cuesheet) into tracks, then value for the album will be the average DR values of the individual tracks, which is certainly different than the DR value of the album regarded as one single song.
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 21:20 |