level matching when comparing lossy to lossless |
level matching when comparing lossy to lossless |
Feb 7 2013, 19:42
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2082 Joined: 18-December 03 Member No.: 10538 |
I probably should have had this settled in my mind long ago, but -- how necessary is it to level match when you are comparing a lossless track, to its mp3 counterpart?
By way of investigation, I compared foobar2k's reported replaygain and track peak values for the same track encoded (LAME 3.98) as V2 (195kbps VBR) and at 320 kbps CBR lossless: Track gain -1.08 Track Peak 0.938171 195kbps VBR: +0.11 0.954459 320kbps CBR: +.10 0.934477 The track peak differences are negligable, but whence comes the >1db difference in RPG gain of lossless vs. lossy? Does this mean that one should level match according to those RPG values when doing an ABX? This post has been edited by krabapple: Feb 7 2013, 19:42 |
|
|
|
![]() |
Feb 7 2013, 20:03
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Server Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4808 Joined: 24-September 01 Member No.: 13 |
If they're encoded from the same source I see no reason to level match, *if* the encoder is not intentionally changing the volume. I understand LAME does this at least in some ABR modes to lower the amount of clipping.
1dB of ReplayGain difference between lossy and lossless is surprising. The ReplayGain calculation isn't perfect of course, but that's more than I'd have expected. Are you sure the same ReplayGain *algorithm* was used in both cases? (original ReplayGain vs R128?) |
|
|
|
krabapple level matching when comparing lossy to lossless Feb 7 2013, 19:42
lvqcl The difference between lossless original and LAME... Feb 7 2013, 20:01
krabapple QUOTE (Garf @ Feb 7 2013, 14:03) If they... Feb 7 2013, 20:28
Arnold B. Krueger QUOTE (krabapple @ Feb 7 2013, 13:42) I p... Feb 7 2013, 20:12
greynol QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Feb 7 2013, 11... Feb 7 2013, 20:32
krabapple QUOTE I find there is too great a tendency to trea... Feb 7 2013, 20:46
greynol QUOTE (krabapple @ Feb 7 2013, 11:46) But... Feb 7 2013, 20:59
krabapple Here's what I get when I run the three tracks ... Feb 7 2013, 20:37
db1989 QUOTE (krabapple @ Feb 7 2013, 19:37) (So... Feb 7 2013, 20:59
greynol Thanks for the data.
I believe those average RMS ... Feb 7 2013, 20:41
lvqcl Do you have foo_hdcd or use foo_dsp_effect for de-... Feb 7 2013, 20:48
krabapple QUOTE (lvqcl @ Feb 7 2013, 14:48) Do you ... Feb 7 2013, 20:51
lvqcl foobar2000 always uses postprocessing plugins such... Feb 7 2013, 20:56
krabapple QUOTE (lvqcl @ Feb 7 2013, 14:56) foobar2... Feb 7 2013, 22:23
greynol Without going into a prolonged discussion about it... Feb 7 2013, 21:03
[JAZ] QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 7 2013, 21:03) Witho... Feb 7 2013, 22:57
greynol QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Feb 7 2013, 13:57)... Feb 7 2013, 23:11
Kees de Visser For critical work I still prefer to adjust for equ... Feb 8 2013, 11:24
db1989 foobar2000 uses libebur128 since v1.1.7, so a diff... Feb 7 2013, 21:15
2Bdecided If I understand it correctly, EBU R128 / ITU BS.17... Feb 8 2013, 13:06
DonP QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 8 2013, 07:06) Bef... Feb 8 2013, 14:18
2Bdecided QUOTE (DonP @ Feb 8 2013, 13:18) QUOTE (2... Feb 8 2013, 14:56
2Bdecided I do not use automatic (RG/R128) loudness matching... Feb 8 2013, 13:15
greynol I'm glad that is all spelled out, though you c... Feb 8 2013, 16:58
2Bdecided It's made me realise that I ought to do a tabl... Feb 8 2013, 17:56
lvqcl QUOTE (krabapple @ Feb 7 2013, 23:28) QUO... Feb 8 2013, 23:19![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 06:22 |