IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Does Replay gain work differtly in Media monkey, Foobar and Media Monkey given 2 differnt Results
jimmanningjr
post Sep 3 2010, 02:57
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 5-August 10
From: Philly Pa USA
Member No.: 82832



Hey Anyone,
For the past 2 years I have been using Media Monkey to Organize and play my music collection which is now about 42,000 tracks about 75% of my collection has Replay gain Values....I am making the switch over to Foobar2000 and was about to replay gain the other 25% with it (Foobar) when I discovered that for the same album I was getting 2 different values...and it is making me wonder does Media Monkey use a different algorithm or is there something I am overlooking...both are set to tag by ALBUM with the track value put in there also. Here are my results: blink.gif

Miles Davis /Jack Johnson Soundtrack/ crying.gif crying.gif
Trk1 Right Off -FOOBAR--Album Gain -1.97db Trk Gain -2.49db
Trk 2 Yesternow-FOOBAR Album Gain -1.97db Trk Gain -0.87db

Trk 1 Right Off Media monkey--Album Vol=-7.9db Trk Vol= -8.4db
Trk 2 Yesternow Media Monkey--Album Vol= -7.9db Trk Vol= - 6.8db

Could someone shed some light on this for me.
Thank You
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
2Bdecided
post Sep 9 2010, 11:13
Post #2


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5139
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



It was a proposed standard in July 2001.

I think a couple of the earliest tag-based implementations did use 83dB. I think one stubbornly does to this day (despite a request for them to change very early on). It doesn't to Album gain "properly" either... http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=49357.0

The very first apply-the-gain implementation (mp3gain) defaulted to 89dB early on.

Subsequently, AFAIK, all tag-based implementations used 89dB, and this became the de facto standard.


Here are some other ways the original proposal isn't reflected in what's in-use today:
* In the original proposal, there were proposals for how to store the ReplayGain values in tags for mp3 and wav. Some software uses these, but most software uses better solutions, and the tagging for other formats wasn't defined in the original proposal.
* The original proposal used the names "radio" and "audiophile" for track and album (for various reasons which seemed sensible at the time). These were changed to "track" and "album" - and everyone was far less confused!
* The original proposal didn't store the album peak, but it made sense to do so, so this was universally adopted AFAIK.


I don't think there is any sense in clinging to the idea that the original archived proposal is definitive, or version 1. It wasn't finished. See the ReplayGain threads from 2002 to see how much work was done afterwards. The result, i.e. what was widely adopted, is version 1. There isn't a version 2 (I tried once, but gave up).

It might make sense for someone to create a new document or website to reflect what is in use today. IMO the HA wiki is more than half way there.
I'm happy for someone to pop a note on the original proposal to say it's an archived website, and current information is in the wiki.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisjj
post Sep 9 2010, 12:05
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 17-February 08
Member No.: 51389



Thanks David for that explanation.

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
I think a couple of the earliest tag-based implementations did use 83dB. I think one stubbornly does to this day (despite a request for them to change very early on).
J River.

I can see their point. For the proposed standard's ref_pink.wav, J River Media Jukebox 14 determines REPLAYGAIN_TRAIN_GAIN as 0dB. That is correct in accordance with the proposed standard:

http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/calibration.html
we send the pink noise signal through the ReplayGain program, and store the result (let's call it ref_Vrms). For every CD we process, the difference between the calculated value for that CD and ref_Vrms tells you how much you need to scale the signal in order to make it average 83dB.


QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
The very first apply-the-gain implementation (mp3gain) defaulted to 89dB early on.
A major non-compliance with the proposed standard.

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
I don't think there is any sense in clinging to the idea that the original archived proposal is definitive, or version 1. It wasn't finished. See the ReplayGain threads from 2002 to see how much work was done afterwards.
Well, I suggest it is unrealistic to expect standards-respecting app developers to see let alone follow updates that aren't mentioned at the ostensible official location - http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/updates.html.

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
It might make sense for someone to create a new document or website to reflect what is in use today.
I suggest what is needed is a specification update. Published in the ostensibly official location, displacing the currently mis-leading proposal.

It should recognise there are V1 and V2 in the field so addresses the migration issue. I for one do not want updated apps to in future mis-interpret old RG values. I had enough of that kind of fun and games with MediaMoney chopping and changing its ratings storage! smile.gif

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
I'm happy for someone to pop a note on the original proposal to say it's an archived website

Actually it isn't. Better I suggest to say that its specification has been superceded by another. And to hold off saying that until it is true! smile.gif

This post has been edited by chrisjj: Sep 9 2010, 12:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisjj
post Sep 10 2010, 01:26
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 17-February 08
Member No.: 51389



QUOTE (chrisjj @ Sep 9 2010, 12:05) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 11:13) *
I think a couple of the earliest tag-based implementations did use 83dB. I think one stubbornly does to this day (despite a request for them to change very early on).
J River.

It is worth noting that JRiver Media Jukebox 14 t read/writes not the standard REPLAYGAIN_* fields, but its own JR/PEAKLEVEL, JR/REPLAYGAIN etc. This opt-out means its use of 83dB is not really a non-compliance with the defacto ReplayGain standard 89dB. Though arguably the app should not call what it does Replay Gain wink.gif

This post has been edited by chrisjj: Sep 10 2010, 01:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- jimmanningjr   Does Replay gain work differtly in Media monkey   Sep 3 2010, 02:57
- - klonuo   perhaps your MM target level is set on 89-6 dB Ed...   Sep 3 2010, 03:06
|- - jimmanningjr   QUOTE (klonuo @ Sep 2 2010, 22:06) perhap...   Sep 3 2010, 06:20
- - 2Bdecided   It certainly looks like a 6dB offset you're se...   Sep 3 2010, 10:43
- - krabapple   QUOTE (jimmanningjr @ Sep 2 2010, 21:57) ...   Sep 4 2010, 04:27
- - Notat   I've seen this too and was wondering if it is ...   Sep 4 2010, 17:34
- - greynol   There is REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LEVEL which was init...   Sep 4 2010, 17:45
|- - jimmanningjr   QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 4 2010, 12:45) There...   Sep 4 2010, 20:15
|- - Notat   QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 4 2010, 10:45) Notat...   Sep 6 2010, 03:16
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Notat @ Sep 5 2010, 19:16) I'd...   Sep 6 2010, 04:36
||- - Notat   QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 5 2010, 21:36) QUOTE...   Sep 6 2010, 22:49
|- - Teknojnky   QUOTE (Notat @ Sep 5 2010, 20:16) MediaMo...   Sep 7 2010, 16:48
|- - Notat   QUOTE (Teknojnky @ Sep 7 2010, 09:48) QUO...   Sep 8 2010, 02:40
- - Alex B   Assuming you want to have universally compatible r...   Sep 5 2010, 19:36
- - 2Bdecided   I've downloaded Media Monkey for the first tim...   Sep 6 2010, 11:02
|- - Notat   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 6 2010, 04:02) So,...   Sep 6 2010, 23:02
|- - chrisjj   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 6 2010, 11:02) MM ...   Sep 8 2010, 02:50
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (chrisjj @ Sep 8 2010, 02:50) QUOTE...   Sep 8 2010, 07:38
|- - chrisjj   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 8 2010, 07:38) If ...   Sep 9 2010, 00:54
- - 2Bdecided   Notat, Maybe I didn't make it clear, so let m...   Sep 7 2010, 09:37
|- - Notat   Thanks for the clarification. What is throwing me ...   Sep 7 2010, 15:59
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Notat @ Sep 7 2010, 15:59) when I ...   Sep 7 2010, 16:45
|- - chrisjj   QUOTE (Notat @ Sep 7 2010, 15:59) What is...   Sep 8 2010, 02:47
- - greynol   Can we have an update to the site so that this doe...   Sep 8 2010, 07:51
- - 2Bdecided   Not from me. It either needs to stay as it is (an...   Sep 8 2010, 10:28
- - 2Bdecided   It was a proposed standard in July 2001. I think ...   Sep 9 2010, 11:13
|- - chrisjj   Thanks David for that explanation. QUOTE (2Bdecid...   Sep 9 2010, 12:05
|- - chrisjj   QUOTE (chrisjj @ Sep 9 2010, 12:05) QUOTE...   Sep 10 2010, 01:26
- - 2Bdecided   Well, maybe somebody can do that. http://www.yout...   Sep 9 2010, 12:55
|- - chrisjj   Agreed, but still if people want to take this forw...   Sep 9 2010, 13:05
|- - jimmanningjr   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 9 2010, 07:55) Wel...   Sep 14 2010, 00:43
- - load97   I had to register here to say thank as well! I...   Oct 13 2010, 08:30
- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (load97 @ Oct 13 2010, 08:30) ... c...   Oct 13 2010, 10:27


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: 22nd September 2014 - 07:15