"MP3Gain: How can it be possible?", It 's indicated that the gain adjustments are lossless |
"MP3Gain: How can it be possible?", It 's indicated that the gain adjustments are lossless |
Aug 1 2012, 00:35
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 19-December 10 Member No.: 86635 |
So I've been thinking of trying to write a similar program from scratch and there's one main thing that I don't even understand how it's possible, yet alone done. So as is said, the process MP3Gain uses is lossless. Thinking about it, the only way MP3Gain could work where any player would play back the songs with whatever the target volume was would be if the change is present in the waveform. After MP3Gain is applied, if it weren't obvious from the beginning, in any audio editing software, the gain reduction is clearly visible. I could somewhat understand how the process can be reversed with added value, even if the waveform clips, as the information could still somehow be stored (more easily than the other way around). On the other hand, when taken away, don't you permanently lose the dB that you took from the threshold? As an example, if a song starts with some 6 decibel ambient noise and you reduce the song by 6dB, wouldn't that intro just completely disappear? And if the change is undone, wouldn't you not get any of the data back (unless it's stored) and just make the existing data 6dB louder? If that's the case, it isn't really undoing the changes; it's really just adding the difference in value back between the indicated ReplayGain value and what it is now.
Sorry this was kinda long-winded but the last thing though I'd also like to ask about is clipping. If a track's peak values are clipping by default, reducing the loudness now would be too late, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be clipping no matter what at this point, contrary to what is indicated? The peaks would be chopped off either way since the structure of the waveform is no longer saved after being finalized. And also, the maximized volume indications don't make sense (has to be turned on in the options). For example, I have a file which ReplayGain indicates peaks at about 1.05 (16-bit = 100.8dB) and yet it's marked that only a 1.5dB reduction would be necessary to get it maximized (the loudest point before clipping - 96dB). Is there something I'm missing? Thanks guys! Answers to these would be extremely helpful. PS- A lot of the things here indicate to me that the values, whether over or under, remain as part of the data in the container but just doesn't play back, or rather, clips since it's within the 16-bit parameter. |
|
|
|
![]() |
Aug 1 2012, 02:25
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4132 Joined: 2-September 02 Member No.: 3264 |
If a track's peak values are clipping by default, reducing the loudness now would be too late, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be clipping no matter what at this point, contrary to what is indicated? The peaks would be chopped off either way since the structure of the waveform is no longer saved after being finalized. Replaygain prevents clipping that occurs during decoding, not clipping that was already present in the time domain samples. For example, I have a file which ReplayGain indicates peaks at about 1.05 (16-bit = 100.8dB) and yet it's marked that only a 1.5dB reduction would be necessary to get it maximized (the loudest point before clipping - 96dB). Is there something I'm missing? Thats not how dB work. Assuming you meant to say that 1.0 is 96 dB (which isn't really right), 1.05 would be 96.2 dB. That said, you get a -1.5dB reduction because mp3gain only has 1.5dB resolution given how MP3 works. So its reducing the volume by the smallest possible increment to get it below 1.0 peak. |
|
|
|
Aug 1 2012, 03:30
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9264 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
Since we're not dealing with power, a ~0.2dB increase would take 1.0 to 1.02. It takes a ~0.4dB increase to take 1.0 to 1.05.
This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 1 2012, 03:34 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Typhoon859 "MP3Gain: How can it be possible?" Aug 1 2012, 00:35
greynol You appear to assume that mp3 data is 16-bit integ... Aug 1 2012, 00:50
2Bdecided QUOTE (greynol @ Aug 1 2012, 00:50) I rec... Aug 1 2012, 13:59
saratoga QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 31 2012, 22:30) Sinc... Aug 1 2012, 15:01
Typhoon859 Right, so, there evidently seems to be a lot I don... Aug 1 2012, 13:24
db1989 QUOTE (Typhoon859 @ Aug 1 2012, 13:24) In... Aug 1 2012, 14:24
saratoga QUOTE (Typhoon859 @ Aug 1 2012, 08:24) Re... Aug 1 2012, 16:06
pdq I seem to recall that the dynamic range of the mp3... Aug 1 2012, 14:16
mjb2006 QUOTE (Typhoon859 @ Jul 31 2012, 17:35) i... Aug 1 2012, 19:31
Typhoon859 First of all, I'd just like to say that many o... Aug 2 2012, 06:40
saratoga QUOTE (Typhoon859 @ Aug 2 2012, 01:40) QU... Aug 2 2012, 16:05
Typhoon859 QUOTE (mjb2006 @ Aug 1 2012, 14:31) If yo... Aug 2 2012, 06:45
2Bdecided QUOTE (Typhoon859 @ Aug 2 2012, 06:45) Wh... Aug 2 2012, 11:53
halb27 A short explanation of mp3 technology in the entir... Aug 2 2012, 10:20
db1989 QUOTE (Typhoon859 @ Aug 2 2012, 06:40) QU... Aug 2 2012, 11:05
[JAZ] @Typhoon859: You should read again your posts, and... Aug 2 2012, 13:03
[JAZ] QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Aug 2 2012, 14:03)... Aug 2 2012, 17:38
alanofoz QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Aug 3 2012, 03:38)... Aug 3 2012, 02:52
greynol You're saying full scale is not maximum amplit... Aug 3 2012, 04:51
alanofoz QUOTE (greynol @ Aug 3 2012, 14:51) You... Aug 3 2012, 23:50
[JAZ] QUOTE (alanofoz @ Aug 4 2012, 00:50) QUOT... Aug 4 2012, 10:55
[JAZ] The signal to noise ratio is the difference betwee... Aug 3 2012, 09:54
2Bdecided I think we scared him off.
Interesting how, on a ... Aug 3 2012, 09:58
skamp QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Aug 3 2012, 10:58) Int... Aug 3 2012, 10:11
2Bdecided QUOTE (skamp @ Aug 3 2012, 10:11) QUOTE (... Aug 3 2012, 10:51
Destroid QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Aug 3 2012, 10:51) Ser... Aug 3 2012, 11:17
bandpass QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Aug 3 2012, 10:51) The... Aug 3 2012, 11:31
Destroid Actually, I hope this person is still lurking and ... Aug 3 2012, 10:50
greynol Allow me to throw another reason into the mix as t... Aug 3 2012, 15:36
alanofoz Hmmm... I re-read my post and didn't think it ... Aug 5 2012, 01:53![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 12:35 |