Flaw in ReplayGain spec
Reply #27 – 2002-05-16 01:14:45
Couple of thoughts.. I use replaygain; I use ogg; I like them both. Cool. On tags in general, what if all 'special' tags were prefixed with something to mark them as 'not designed for human digestion'? That doesn't necessarily mean they're not human readable, just that it would be kind of silly to human-edit them. Also, I like the 4 fields. I can understand your frustration, Garf, (as much as someone who is not trying to do the same thing can) but is it truly necessary to get Xiph endorsement of replaygain in order to use it? I mean, it is preferable no doubt, but is it essential? Or would things just get less happy-friendly if you just went ahead and did it separately? I mean, I can understand the idea of using an external database, I don't even mind it, but it is not much help for things like burning individual files to a CD if you want to burn 50 tracks, but not the database for all 5000 tracks you may have. From this perspective, I think tags on the individual files are better. Of course, in this case, Album gain may be unimportant; but that said, if you don't want it then you can always ignore it. That dozen or so bytes is not going to fill the hard drive notably quicker (or at least, one would hope not). Just a few thoughts on the table, sorry for any ranting; caffine levels are a tad high this morning. gnoshi btw. garf: In case I didn't get the message across, I really like your work on replaygain. WD+THNX.