IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

About ReplayGain standard
waaateva
post Apr 12 2009, 11:20
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 2-January 09
Member No.: 65095



Hi! I'm new here. I'm sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I'd appreciate your help!

Please read this first:
I made a suggestion, which I think will improve the current Replay Gain standard. But my strongest point was proven invalid. Other benefits, though existent, may not be worth the hassles of changing an already popular standard. So I guess we'll just leave it as it is smile.gif.
Thanks for the discussion.


I think RG standard should be changed, so that it stores the actual level of the track, rather than the "gain". Here are my points:

1. Standards should not feel awkward, and the current standard feels very awkward. Don't get me wrong, it works perfectly. But where did that 89dB "reference level" come from? Based on what was it decided? Besides, I'd rather see how loud my track/album is, instead of looking at some (less meaningful) negative numbers.

2. To my knowledge, the reference level used to be 83dB (it's still on the RG homepage), but was later changed to 89dB for some reason. I have no idea how players dealed with that change, really. Now what if it is changed again? Of course updating the gain is a trivial task, but how do we know if the track were updated or not? And which tracks were scanned using which reference level? Storing the actual level is immune to this problem, because it is the logical way to store track loudness.
Not valid.

3. This is the most important. This change will not break any compatibility! All we have to do is add 2 new tag fields: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_LEVEL and REPLAYGAIN_ALBUM_LEVEL. They can be easily calculated from the 2 old "GAIN" fields (assuming the 89dB reference was used). New players will use these new fields and just ignore the old ones, while old players remain compatible. And the "Pre-amp" option will be changed to "Preferred Level", which defaults to 89dB. Makes much more sense to me!

4. It's not too late. Replay Gain is getting more and more attention. My Sansa Fuze has just got RG support via a firmware update, and I'm extremely happy with that. Before RG is widely used or even becomes an official standard, we should improve it as far as we can!

These are only my ideas. I don't know what else to do but post it here laugh.gif. If you are the RG proposer, or a player developer, or have anything to do with the Replay Gain standard, please consider!

Thank you.

This post has been edited by waaateva: Apr 13 2009, 12:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
2Bdecided
post Sep 3 2010, 10:41
Post #2


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5152
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



I didn't see this thread at the time, and I certainly don't want to resurrect it because IMO the ideas in it are not good.

However, a Google search now throws it up, so I feel I should add a comment.

The threads linked above include quite long discussions, but the conclusion is here...

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=170957
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jan 8 2004, 13:18) *
When it stored the absolute loudness of the file (e.g. 92dB), it was called Replay Level.

When it changed to storing the relative gain (e.g. -3dB), it was renamed to Replay Gain: relative gains, referenced to making the loudness 83dB through a calibrated system, plus 6dB.

... conceptually, saying the file sounds x dB loud at reference playback level doesn't actually tell you how much to change the gain if the non-parallel equal loudness curves are ever taken into account ... Whereas saying "shift it x dB to make it the reference playback loudness" can include that factor in the calculation.
So it's better the way it is wink.gif

btw, a replaygain_reference_level tag is a very bad idea, because it completely breaks compatibility with all other implementations, and is totally unnecessary. I hope no one has implemented it.

(though I know that data can be implicitly present as part of the undo data when ReplayGain changes have been applied, e.g. by mp3gain, which is fine).

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- waaateva   About ReplayGain standard   Apr 12 2009, 11:20
- - tot   The gain numbers are meaningful. They show how mu...   Apr 12 2009, 14:03
|- - waaateva   QUOTE (tot @ Apr 12 2009, 20:03) The refe...   Apr 12 2009, 15:27
|- - tot   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 16:27) QUO...   Apr 12 2009, 16:12
- - waaateva   I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're t...   Apr 12 2009, 16:54
|- - tot   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 17:54) I s...   Apr 12 2009, 17:29
|- - skamp   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 17:54) REP...   Apr 12 2009, 17:42
|- - waaateva   QUOTE (skamp @ Apr 12 2009, 23:42) QUOTE ...   Apr 12 2009, 17:49
|- - tot   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 18:49) Me ...   Apr 12 2009, 18:05
|- - waaateva   QUOTE (tot @ Apr 13 2009, 00:05) QUOTE (w...   Apr 12 2009, 18:10
|- - tot   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 19:10) OK,...   Apr 12 2009, 20:00
- - lvqcl   QUOTE Besides, I'd rather see how loud my trac...   Apr 12 2009, 17:15
|- - waaateva   QUOTE (lvqcl @ Apr 12 2009, 23:15) Audio ...   Apr 12 2009, 17:44
|- - lvqcl   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 20:44) Of ...   Apr 12 2009, 17:49
|- - waaateva   Agreed. And my suggestion is to tweak the standard...   Apr 12 2009, 18:01
|- - Canar   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 10:01) Agr...   Apr 12 2009, 18:57
- - greynol   Coming from someone who uses 92 dB for a target vo...   Apr 12 2009, 19:07
|- - waaateva   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 13 2009, 01:07) Comi...   Apr 13 2009, 04:08
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 23:08) QUO...   Apr 13 2009, 04:16
||- - waaateva   QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Apr 13 2009, 10...   Apr 13 2009, 04:32
||- - greynol   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 20:32) You...   Apr 13 2009, 07:21
|||- - waaateva   Guys, You were right, I was wrong about MP3Gain an...   Apr 13 2009, 10:57
|||- - Lear   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 13 2009, 10:57) Now...   Apr 13 2009, 13:25
|||- - waaateva   Thanks for the links, they are very helpful. This ...   Apr 13 2009, 15:12
|||- - tot   QUOTE (Lear @ Apr 13 2009, 14:25) Because...   Apr 13 2009, 15:28
||- - greynol   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 12 2009, 20:32) So,...   Apr 13 2009, 07:24
|- - David Nordin   QUOTE (waaateva @ Apr 13 2009, 05:08) Act...   Apr 13 2009, 08:33
- - timcupery   I like the suggestion, although I don't think ...   Apr 12 2009, 19:13
|- - WonderSlug   Wouldn't it just be easier to assume that sinc...   Apr 12 2009, 19:27
- - greynol   There's already a tag for this: REPLAYGAIN_REF...   Apr 12 2009, 19:31
- - Mike Giacomelli   This seems pointless.   Apr 13 2009, 01:38
- - Big_Berny   IMHO it makes sense what waaateva means. And AFAIK...   Apr 13 2009, 02:35
- - [JAZ]   I also believe waaateva got confused. I've ch...   Apr 13 2009, 10:33
- - 2Bdecided   I didn't see this thread at the time, and I ce...   Sep 3 2010, 10:41


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 October 2014 - 19:00