IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MPC VBR flaws (low volume & ringing), audible under specific conditions
guruboolez
post Jun 23 2005, 10:22
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



Iíve read recently some complaints about musepack and distortions occurring with classical music (examples here and here). There were no ABX tests to confirm them. According to my previous listening tests at ~175 kbps, musepack performs not only very well with various kinds of instrumental and vocal samples, but also better than competitors. But Iíve also noticed in the past one issue with this audio format that my previous test didnít revealed, and itís a very big one. Iíd like to bring out this problem to the community, which wasnít as far as I know warned about this kind of flaw.

Before carrying and before some seeing zealous users bare its teeth, I have to make clear that this issue only occurs in specific conditions. The problem is confined to low-volume musical content, and is mainly audible when this content has to be listened to a higher playback volume. In other words, affected tracks must have low volume parts, and tracks with high dynamic are not really concerned (you canít constantly push the volume on such material: your neighbors wonít appreciate it). The problem becomes really critical with low-volume tracks only. People who have to live with the consequences of the ďloudness warĒ are certainly not used to encounter such tracks, but for classical fans, tracks that are replaygained at +10 dB, +20 dB and sometimes +30 dB are all except a rare thing (tracks with corrected gain beyond +25 dB are nevertheless very rare). The encoded material would exhibit strong artifacts with ReplayGan set with Track Mode (they wonít be audible otherwise, except maybe as a subtle form of distortion Ė it could explain some recent complains about musepack and classical music). With RG enabled, even untrained people will be shocked by the terrible ringing that run across this musical material. MPC, with --standard profile, and to some degree --extreme and also Ėinsane is apparently not sensitive enough to handle low volume situation.


At this stage of my account, some people would be probably tempted to claim that such issue is normal with perceptual encoding, and that all other formats will suffer from the same issue in this specific playback condition. But a quick comparison would immediately deny all validity to this idea. Iíve compared musepack --standard to comparable MP3, AAC and Vorbis presets, and these competitors showed the ability to encode properly (no ringing, flat lowpass at high level) the same material. Even stranger, MP3 at 128 kbps, or Vorbis at 90 kbps (!), or AAC (faac!) at 100 kbps perform *much* better than musepack --standard. In other words, perceptual encoders (at least modern one) could handle this situation transparently at mid/low bitrate, even with VBR; only musepack fails, and badly. It might be interesting to note that the VBR model is apparently flawed: with --standard, the bitrate drops to unusual value (110Ö140 kbps), and quality to an even more abnormal threshold. An illustration (graphical Ė listening tests were performed upstream - click for link) could make things easier to understand:



Iíve also uploaded an additional gallery - the last one looks very weird! and sounds even worse as it looks.


The ringing, and the austere lowpass, are obvious on these screenshots. Quality is objectively worse than MP3@128; subjectively speaking, the audibility is Ėas usual- linked to various conditions: hardware, player settings (RG or not), listenerí sensitivity to ringing. Some users wonít notice it, some others will be frightened. The important point to note here is that other audio formats have no problems; my purpose wasnít to make an infertile comparison between MPC and other. Based on this comparison, Iím tempted to say that MPC could rejoin them with some tuning. Anecdotal point: LAME had recently serious issue (which also concern 3.90.3 ABR at mid/low bitrate) and they were recently solved by developers. I think Gabriel worked on an adaptive ATH threshold, and it might be a lead for MPC developer or for some users which are interested to play with current encoder switches.


Iíve uploaded some samples. The gain for short samples is necessary different from the gain of complete sample; but Iíve tried to cut sample with similar gain. The WavPack samples uploaded have all the native gain and the track_peak of the full track. Iíve also duplicated the track gain to the album gain.

http://guruboolez.free.fr/MPC/quiet_tracks_replaygained.zip

Two appendix in this zip file : a piano sample for which track gain for the sample doesnít really match to the track gain of the full track (+40 dB instead of +25 dB) ; and a very noisy track for which musepack doesnít have any problem, despite of high gain correction.


This report is probably the last one Iíll do for MPC (a developer have claim their lack of interest for improving classical at --standard), but I nevertheless hope it will help to improve the encoder. Playing with command line (in order to change ATH or noise sensitivity) might be enough to solve or reduce this issue; therefore, every MPC user could contribute. In the meantime, users should be aware of this issue.

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Jun 23 2005, 10:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Gabriel
post Jul 9 2005, 11:16
Post #2


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Isn't the purpose of track gain to be able to use the tracks in a compilation of tracks from different albums?
In this case, why would track gain be dependant of the gain of its neighbours tracks in the original album? If someone wants to listen a full album, he would use album gain, not track gain.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Frank Klemm
post Jul 9 2005, 14:47
Post #3


MPC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 543
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 659



QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jul 9 2005, 12:16 PM)
Isn't the purpose of track gain to be able to use the tracks in a compilation of tracks from different albums?
In this case, why would track gain be dependant of the gain of its neighbours tracks in the original album? If someone wants to listen a full album, he would use album gain, not track gain.
*


This is not an article about Musepack, but about flaws in the current ReplayGain
concept and implementation. Low level artefacts are related to this problem,
but this article is about ReplayGain and problems with ReplayGain. ReplayGain
ist *not* perfect at all, there's a long list of problems. Actually I use only
album based ReplayGain, other modes have a lot of problems which may significantly
reduce enjoy music.

Okay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should (always) start from the user application side.
And there there are at least three scenarios.

1. You want to listen to an album in original order. You want to remove volume differences between albums. The aim is to avoid volume differences between albums with different reference level, which is typical for album mastered in different decades. The effect is like a computer's turn on the volume control between albums (and by the way can also implemented in this way when the computer has access to the volume control via RS-232, RS-422, Cable LAN, Wireless LAN, IR-RC, IR-DA, USB, IEEE-1394, CAN, ...).

2. You want to listen to an album in original order. You want to remove volume differences between titels. The aim ist to reduce loudness differences inside an album, maybe also inside longer or very dynamic tracks. These loudness adjustments must be inaudible at all. No clicks, no distortions, no incredible noise boosting, no obviously loudness changes.

3. You want to shuffle titles of different album and you want to remove loudness differences between the titles. The goal is again: No clicks, no distortions, no incredible noise boosting, no obviously loudness changes.

Okay? Always start from the user application side, never start from the SSE and 3DNow!
assembler code side! Even when you like assembly programming on Intel.
Okay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now from the programmers geek side.

Solution for 1 is the album based replaygain and this work really great.

Solution for 2 is the proposal above. There should be a free parameter (with a useful default value) which controls the speed of the AGC. Someone want only slight loudness correction especially on title borders, another people wants to remove nearly all dynamic.

For album with silence at the title boundaries title based replaygain often works.
When there's only little loudness difference inside the album also the album gain works (see examples 2)!
There are some conceptional flaws and some flaws in the implementation.
* From time to time there are titles with (psychological) much too much title based replaygain gain
** short titles
** silent titles which must be silent at all
* file boundaries not at the real title boundaries
* live albums / classic without gaps
* noisy albums with little, but audible noise between tracks
* albums with DC
When an album has one of these problems, title based replaygain works poorly.
(see also Examples 1).

Solutions for 3 are also not so easy to implement. First of all we have problems with
boundaries (shifted, no silence). But it is not the task of replaygain to find useful
cuts or to fade between live titles during playback.

Primary goal is to remove loudness differences. Secondary goal is to avoid boosting
of intentionally silent titles. Third goal is to avoid noise boosting.

Short and very silent titles should not be boosted as much as replaygain's function GetTitleGain() says. This is important to avoid boosting of short and intentionally
silent titles.

To avoid noise boosting, ReplayGain's title gain must be limited. ReplayGain's album gain makes less problems, I only found albums with gains between -12.3 dB and +9,4 dB.
Within the title gain I found gain from -13,7 dB to +30,9 dB.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even for 2 AND for 3 the current ReplayGain title gain is a really good implementation.
There are some flaws affecting the usage of ReplayGain title gain for problem 2 AND for problem 3. These should be fixed. In combination with a solution of the cut problem then ReplayGain title gain is also a great solution for problem 3.

Problem 2 must be solved completely different. Even when the ReplayGain title gain problems are solved, there are enough problems remaining when you want to use it
with music with
* file boundaries not at the real title boundaries
* live albums / classic without gaps
* noisy albums with little, but audible noise between tracks
* albums with DC

Examples: see next posting(s)

This post has been edited by Frank Klemm: Jul 9 2005, 15:23


--------------------
-- Frank Klemm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jul 11 2005, 00:13
Post #4


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Frank Klemm @ Jul 9 2005, 10:47 AM)
ReplayGain ist *not* perfect at all, there's a long list of problems. Actually I use only album based ReplayGain, other modes have a lot of problems which may significantly reduce enjoy music.

Okay?
*


Honestly, that's the first time I see that reported here. Most other complaints I have seen were about replaygaining tools having bugs (wasn't there something about MP3gain and a memory leak? It happened so long ago...) and not about the proposal itself, as well as the existing implementations of it, having issues inherent to the analytical model or the way the gain information is obtained.

There were some complaints about RG behaving in a weird fashion on some specific albums, but I wouldn't call that "a long list of problems".


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Frank Klemm
post Jul 11 2005, 18:23
Post #5


MPC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 543
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 659



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jul 11 2005, 01:13 AM)
QUOTE (Frank Klemm @ Jul 9 2005, 10:47 AM)
ReplayGain ist *not* perfect at all, there's a long list of problems. Actually I use only album based ReplayGain, other modes have a lot of problems which may significantly reduce enjoy music.

Okay?
*


Honestly, that's the first time I see that reported here.


The are audible clicks between all tracks with signal between the tracks.
There are also sudden loudness jumps between tracks with signal between the tracks.

I can live with loudness difference within albums (especially when they are intended), but not with obviously artefacts with occure from time to time. I want to relax when I listen to music.


--------------------
-- Frank Klemm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mtm
post Jul 12 2005, 05:07
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 6-November 01
Member No.: 419



QUOTE (Frank Klemm @ Jul 11 2005, 07:23 PM)
The are audible clicks between all tracks with signal between the tracks.
There are also sudden loudness jumps between tracks with signal between the tracks.
*
I can confirm. Some time ago I encountered a soundtrack with horribly uneven volume among all tracks. An experiment with track gain before encoding resulted in clicks and said loudness jumps. At least the second issue would be granted, too, with normal (post-encoding) track gain.

QUOTE (Frank Klemm)
I will do some checks concerning bitrates for Pop and classic Music depending on the ATH gain setting.
Thank you for your effort. smile.gif


--------------------
Marius the Mad
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Frank Klemm
post Jul 12 2005, 22:39
Post #7


MPC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 543
Joined: 15-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 659



QUOTE (mtm @ Jul 12 2005, 06:07 AM)
QUOTE (Frank Klemm @ Jul 11 2005, 07:23 PM)
The are audible clicks between all tracks with signal between the tracks.
There are also sudden loudness jumps between tracks with signal between the tracks.
*
I can confirm. Some time ago I encountered a soundtrack with horribly uneven volume among all tracks. An experiment with track gain before encoding resulted in clicks and said loudness jumps. At least the second issue would be granted, too, with normal (post-encoding) track gain.

QUOTE (Frank Klemm)
I will do some checks concerning bitrates for Pop and classic Music depending on the ATH gain setting.
Thank you for your effort. smile.gif
*



Nightwish -- Tales from the Elvenpath -- Dead Boy's Poem
CODE
PCM size File size  Ratio  kbps    Duration  Param Frequency  Name
  72.088     5.936          116    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +40.mpc
  72.088     7.017          137    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +30.mpc
  72.088     7.797  9.246   153    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +20.mpc
  72.088     8.388  8.594   164    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +10.mpc
  72.088     8.821  8.172   173    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  0.mpc
  72.088     9.142  7.885   179    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -10.mpc
  72.088     9.426  7.648   185    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -20.mpc
  72.088     9.660  7.462   189    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -30.mpc
  72.088     9.852  7.317   193    6:48.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -40.mpc
 648.799    76.042  8.532   165   61:18.000                   --- 9 files ---

RG -8.2 dB

80/81 (CD 1) (1981) -- Pat Metheny/Charlie Haden -- Two Folk Songs: 1st (Pat Metheny)%3B 2nd (Charlie Haden)
CODE
PCM size File size  Ratio  kbps    Duration  Param Frequency  Name
 220.970    16.638          106   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +40.mpc
 220.970    20.651          132   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +30.mpc
 220.970    23.596  9.364   151   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +20.mpc
 220.970    25.983  8.504   166   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  +10.mpc
 220.970    27.951  7.906   179   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  0.mpc
 220.970    29.363  7.525   188   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -10.mpc
 220.970    30.373  7.275   194   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -20.mpc
 220.970    31.172  7.089   199   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -30.mpc
 220.970    31.835  6.941   203   20:52.667  (2x16 44100 Hz)  -40.mpc
1988.733   237.565  8.371   169  187:54.000                   --- 9 files ---

RG +2.2 dB

Debussy -- Syrincs
CODE
Damn, where is this nice CD

RG +10.3 dB

This post has been edited by Frank Klemm: Jul 12 2005, 22:45


--------------------
-- Frank Klemm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- guruboolez   MPC VBR flaws (low volume & ringing)   Jun 23 2005, 10:22
- - shadowking   I confirm serious problems under these special lis...   Jun 23 2005, 11:07
- - Acid8000   What I understand from your post guru is that at ...   Jun 23 2005, 11:24
- - rjamorim   I think you should put more creativity into your r...   Jun 23 2005, 15:24
- - Gambit   I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, so I t...   Jun 23 2005, 15:41
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (Gambit @ Jun 23 2005, 03:41 PM)QUOTE ...   Jun 27 2005, 10:27
- - Gabriel   The obvious workaround is to check the track gain ...   Jun 23 2005, 20:33
- - Lefungus   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jun 23 2005, 11:22 AM)Thi...   Jun 23 2005, 20:33
|- - Dibrom   QUOTE (Lefungus @ Jun 23 2005, 11:33 AM)QUOTE...   Jun 23 2005, 22:01
||- - mtm   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jun 23 2005, 11:01 PM)I would...   Jun 23 2005, 22:23
||- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jun 23 2005, 11:22 AM)Thi...   Jun 27 2005, 12:18
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Lefungus @ Jun 23 2005, 04:33 PM)The c...   Jun 23 2005, 22:21
- - mtm   guruboolez, thank you very much for your input. I ...   Jun 23 2005, 21:43
- - CiTay   Thanks again for that summary, guruboolez. I alrea...   Jun 24 2005, 01:20
- - CiTay   Frank replied from work that he will comment as so...   Jun 24 2005, 10:33
- - mtm   My sincerest thanks to everyone involved.   Jun 24 2005, 14:40
- - xmixahlx   dibrom's speed enhancements were focused on PP...   Jun 27 2005, 20:32
|- - Dibrom   QUOTE (xmixahlx @ Jun 27 2005, 11:32 AM)dibro...   Jun 27 2005, 21:04
- - CiTay   As promised, here is the answer that i got from Fr...   Jun 28 2005, 20:09
- - CiTay   I'm a bit surprised nobody has to say anything...   Jul 2 2005, 21:40
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 2 2005, 05:40 PM)I'm a...   Jul 2 2005, 21:56
||- - CiTay   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jul 2 2005, 10:56 PM)Well, ...   Jul 2 2005, 22:37
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 2 2005, 09:40 PM)I'm a...   Jul 5 2005, 13:33
|- - markanini   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 5 2005, 01:33 PM)QUOT...   Jul 5 2005, 14:45
||- - guruboolez   QUOTE (markanini @ Jul 5 2005, 02:45 PM)I don...   Jul 5 2005, 16:17
|- - Dibrom   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 5 2005, 04:33 AM)QUOT...   Jul 5 2005, 16:25
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE I think it's probably worth noting that ...   Jul 5 2005, 16:51
|- - Vertigo   QUOTE QUOTE I think it's probably worth noting...   Jul 5 2005, 17:26
- - Vertigo   Hahaha, I love it when robert comes in to save the...   Jul 3 2005, 00:54
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Vertigo @ Jul 2 2005, 08:54 PM)Hahaha,...   Jul 3 2005, 01:01
- - Dibrom   Do we need to split this thread again to stay on t...   Jul 3 2005, 01:32
- - Cyaneyes   Just to comment on Frank's thoughts on Track g...   Jul 3 2005, 02:43
|- - Andavari   QUOTE (Cyaneyes @ Jul 2 2005, 07:43 PM)Just t...   Jul 3 2005, 03:47
|- - Lyx   *nevermind - i mixed up trackgain and albumgain*   Jul 3 2005, 04:27
- - xmixahlx   ...if this problem only occurs in music with ridic...   Jul 3 2005, 11:29
- - Lime   I think a workaround is easy. Just do a replaygain...   Jul 5 2005, 15:10
- - Raptus   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jun 23 2005, 11:33 AM)The fi...   Jul 5 2005, 15:41
|- - Shade[ST]   wouldnt this type of adjustment make the ath usele...   Jul 5 2005, 15:47
- - Gabriel   QUOTE wouldnt this type of adjustment make the ath...   Jul 5 2005, 16:04
|- - Dibrom   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jul 5 2005, 07:04 AM)If I re...   Jul 5 2005, 16:46
- - Dibrom   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 5 2005, 07:51 AM)QUOT...   Jul 5 2005, 17:26
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE Well haven't you gotten polite answers i...   Jul 5 2005, 18:52
- - Dibrom   QUOTE QUOTE By that, I mean that changing this in ...   Jul 5 2005, 17:26
- - Vertigo   I think we need to send Guruboolez the HA Controve...   Jul 5 2005, 17:32
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Vertigo @ Jul 5 2005, 01:32 PM)I think...   Jul 5 2005, 17:51
|- - Vertigo   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jul 5 2005, 08:51 AM)QUOTE ...   Jul 5 2005, 17:57
- - Jebus   I think there seems to just be an issue with ATH a...   Jul 5 2005, 20:22
- - CiTay   I got a new e-Mail from Frank (he follows this thr...   Jul 8 2005, 22:19
|- - ChristianHJW   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 8 2005, 09:19 PM)I got a n...   Jul 10 2005, 09:45
- - Gabriel   Isn't the purpose of track gain to be able to ...   Jul 9 2005, 11:16
|- - Frank Klemm   QUOTE (Gabriel @ Jul 9 2005, 12:16 PM)Isn...   Jul 9 2005, 14:47
|- - Frank Klemm   Example for changing title based replaygains from ...   Jul 9 2005, 14:58
|- - Frank Klemm   Other examples where ReplayGain makes nonsense. Es...   Jul 9 2005, 15:16
||- - Frank Klemm   A lot of albums have nearly no differences between...   Jul 9 2005, 15:22
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE This is not an article about Musepack, but a...   Jul 10 2005, 23:22
||- - Dibrom   QUOTE I won't say that ReplayGain is the cause...   Jul 11 2005, 00:15
||- - Gambit   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 11 2005, 12:15 AM)I think...   Jul 11 2005, 00:22
|||- - Dibrom   QUOTE (Gambit @ Jul 10 2005, 03:22 PM)QUOTE (...   Jul 11 2005, 00:25
|||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 10 2005, 08:25 PM)Well ca...   Jul 11 2005, 00:28
|||- - Dibrom   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jul 10 2005, 03:28 PM)QUOTE...   Jul 11 2005, 00:33
|||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 10 2005, 08:33 PM)Umm.. I...   Jul 11 2005, 00:41
|||- - Dibrom   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jul 10 2005, 03:41 PM)Well,...   Jul 11 2005, 00:59
|||- - rjamorim   Thanks for your clarification. So, from that, one...   Jul 11 2005, 01:02
|||- - Dibrom   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jul 10 2005, 04:02 PM)Thank...   Jul 11 2005, 01:05
|||- - CiTay   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 11 2005, 02:05 AM)'Co...   Jul 11 2005, 01:26
|||- - guruboolez   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 11 2005, 01:26 AM)With tha...   Jul 11 2005, 11:53
|||- - CiTay   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 11 2005, 12:53 PM)Now...   Jul 11 2005, 13:01
|||- - guruboolez   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 11 2005, 01:01 PM)QUOTE (g...   Jul 11 2005, 14:14
||- - guruboolez   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 11 2005, 12:15 AM)The inv...   Jul 11 2005, 02:18
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Frank Klemm @ Jul 9 2005, 10:47 AM)Rep...   Jul 11 2005, 00:13
|- - Frank Klemm   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jul 11 2005, 01:13 AM)QUOTE...   Jul 11 2005, 18:23
|- - mtm   QUOTE (Frank Klemm @ Jul 11 2005, 07:23 PM)Th...   Jul 12 2005, 05:07
|- - Frank Klemm   QUOTE (mtm @ Jul 12 2005, 06:07 AM)QUOTE (Fra...   Jul 12 2005, 22:39
- - Gambit   It seems funny to me that you would try to fix Rep...   Jul 9 2005, 11:48
- - mtm   Thank you for your posts, Mr Klemm. They certainly...   Jul 9 2005, 18:51
- - mtm   I just want to say I agree with everything Dibrom ...   Jul 11 2005, 01:35
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (mtm @ Jul 11 2005, 01:35 AM)I don...   Jul 11 2005, 02:26
- - Dibrom   I think I probably agree with guruboolez. I'm...   Jul 11 2005, 13:11
|- - ancl   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 11 2005, 02:11 PM)I think...   Jul 11 2005, 13:33
||- - Dibrom   QUOTE (ancl @ Jul 11 2005, 04:33 AM)The 2-pas...   Jul 11 2005, 13:53
|- - CiTay   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Jul 11 2005, 02:11 PM)I think...   Jul 11 2005, 13:40
|- - Dibrom   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 11 2005, 04:40 AM)Yes, it...   Jul 11 2005, 13:57
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 11 2005, 01:40 PM)"Ho...   Jul 11 2005, 14:27
|- - CiTay   QUOTE The current problem of MPC is not to be sure...   Jul 11 2005, 15:07
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 11 2005, 03:07 PM)I don...   Jul 11 2005, 15:23
|- - CiTay   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 11 2005, 04:23 PM)May...   Jul 11 2005, 15:33
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (CiTay @ Jul 11 2005, 03:33 PM)The thre...   Jul 11 2005, 15:50
|- - CiTay   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jul 11 2005, 04:50 PM)QUO...   Jul 11 2005, 16:03
- - 2Bdecided   I think the concentration on ReplayGain is mislead...   Jul 11 2005, 14:49
|- - guruboolez   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 11 2005, 02:49 PM)btw,...   Jul 11 2005, 15:01
|- - Dibrom   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 11 2005, 05:49 AM)The ...   Jul 11 2005, 15:14
||- - guruboolez   QUOTE Yes, but looking back the original quote fro...   Jul 11 2005, 15:35
|- - Frank Klemm   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 11 2005, 03:49 PM)The ...   Jul 11 2005, 18:14
- - CiTay   Also, guruboolez, i want to apologize to you again...   Jul 11 2005, 15:30
- - krazy   QUOTE (Frank Klemm @ Jul 12 2005, 01:23 AM)I ...   Jul 11 2005, 19:36
|- - Frank Klemm   QUOTE (krazy @ Jul 11 2005, 08:36 PM)QUOTE (F...   Jul 11 2005, 19:51
- - 2Bdecided   If you play nogap tracks out of sequence, you...   Jul 12 2005, 10:53
|- - seanyseansean   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 12 2005, 10:53 AM)A ne...   Jul 12 2005, 10:57
|- - dev0   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 12 2005, 10:53 AM)That...   Jul 12 2005, 11:17
- - guruboolez   I made a similar comparison, using short samples d...   Jul 13 2005, 00:41
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: 2nd September 2014 - 06:30