IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
R128Scan [obsolete], Now implemented by bundled foo_rgscan
GeSomeone
post Feb 3 2011, 12:20
Post #76





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



QUOTE (grimes @ Feb 3 2011, 12:15) *
In the mentioned plot, ReplayGain is 1LU louder than R128!
This is contrary to my results (R128 ~1LU louder than RG).

I'm sorry I realize that using the term "louder" was not clear enough.

What I meant was when you would apply the calculated values as shown in your results in post #62, the result would be (on average roughly) 1dB louder with the R128scan values compared to the ReplayGain values.

It made me doubt that 5 dB/LU is the best offset.

edit: I decided to test a bit myself and for some "normal" jazz, pop and rock music the (album gain) result came close. For very bass heavy tracks it become all the more clear that ReplayGain ignores the low end too much, I'm not sure R128 ignores enough of it (maybe I just have to get used it's behaviour).

note to self: don't draw conclusions from 1 picture too quickly

This post has been edited by GeSomeone: Feb 4 2011, 21:05


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
grimes
post Feb 4 2011, 10:40
Post #77





Group: Developer
Posts: 303
Joined: 12-November 07
From: Frankfurt
Member No.: 48701



Here are the plots of my bootlegs (note: these are no professional productions):







Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
M
post Feb 4 2011, 13:56
Post #78





Group: Members
Posts: 964
Joined: 29-December 01
Member No.: 830



QUOTE (Raiden @ Feb 2 2011, 04:19) *
edit: R128Gain rounds values to one significant digit before it writes them to the file, while foo_r128scan and r128-* use 2 significant digits.

Just curious (not like it's a serious issue), but...

foobar2000 reports five significant digits for ReplayGain tags. How much overhead would be involved in calculating that level of precision with foo_r128scan, and how difficult would it be to implement a "high precision" mode to go along with the "true peak" mode, for testing?

M.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Feb 4 2011, 14:58
Post #79





Group: Admin
Posts: 4578
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



foo_r128scan already logs in full double precision floating point values, but display and possibly tags are limited to two significant decimal places. I don't know where you are seeing these five significant digits of ReplayGain data, but the current version uses the same fixed two digits in the SDK when converting the floating point gain values to text for writing tags.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
M
post Feb 4 2011, 14:59
Post #80





Group: Members
Posts: 964
Joined: 29-December 01
Member No.: 830



QUOTE (M @ Feb 4 2011, 07:56) *
foobar2000 reports five significant digits...

Oops! I meant six significant digits. Silly me, posting before coffee and all!

M.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
M
post Feb 4 2011, 15:07
Post #81





Group: Members
Posts: 964
Joined: 29-December 01
Member No.: 830



QUOTE (kode54 @ Feb 4 2011, 08:58) *
foo_r128scan already logs in full double precision floating point values, but display and possibly tags are limited to two significant decimal places. I don't know where you are seeing these five significant digits of ReplayGain data, but the current version uses the same fixed two digits in the SDK when converting the floating point gain values to text for writing tags.

I was looking at the values displayed by selecting "Edit ReplayGain Information" from within the ReplayGain context menu, with the assumption that if six decimal places are shown, there might be a reason. So foobar2000 calculates more precise values than it bothers to display, even though the display exists? Seems like an odd choice.

M.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Feb 4 2011, 22:26
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



On ambient style albums I like the results much better than those of ReplayGain. Less too loud tracks.
I'm pleasantly surprised.

Just a few remarks on the cosmetics, I know, the least important part smile.gif
  • The order in the Scan results window is the order the scans were completed, not the order of the selection (as with RGscan). So long tracks often appear later.
  • The position of the result window is not remembered
BTW The file names without the path, in the progress window, make more sense than those of RGscan.


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Feb 5 2011, 18:47
Post #83





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



I was just thinking we needed a new normalizing tool and found this biggrin.gif Thanks for your work and I am glad I erased my ReplayGain tags months ago lol

I'm going to use this to get values for FLAC files then convert those into 160 aac vbr with neraacenc. Should I wait awhile or has everything been fixed?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Feb 5 2011, 20:37
Post #84





Group: Admin
Posts: 4578
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



I guess the number of significant digits depends on the tags used.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Feb 7 2011, 15:27
Post #85





Group: Admin
Posts: 4578
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



Updated.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Feb 9 2011, 06:38
Post #86





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



I'm tempted to start using this but I'll wait a month till all the bugs are ironed out. Hell it was just updated yesterday lol
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Feb 9 2011, 09:33
Post #87





Group: Admin
Posts: 4578
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



But that update only fixed a bug with odd sample rates, if you'll observe the change log. Everything should be pretty stable now.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Feb 9 2011, 23:03
Post #88





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



Alright, I'm doing my entire FLAC library now, then afterward I'll use foobar2000 to convert into NeroAACEnc 190 VBR with gain applied. Thanks for this plugin I'm on Ubuntu and don't have any good audio programs that work except foobar2000. I use that for editing not playback, thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
airon
post Mar 21 2011, 09:28
Post #89





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23-January 03
Member No.: 4708



I'd like to generate a text report for selected playlist entries, using a reference of -23dB LUFS.

How can I achieve this ?

Any pointers to where I can read up and gather information myself is appreciated. I don't want to burden anyone with having to explain basics to me, and am willing to do the leg work myself. I just need to know where to get started.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Chinch
post Mar 29 2011, 06:21
Post #90





Group: Members
Posts: 98
Joined: 22-July 09
Member No.: 71664



Ok, I'm going to apologize ahead of time for my ignorance, but everything you guys are talking about is going way over my head.

I understand the concept of the plugin... it's a volume normalizer, like ReplayGain. I just have a few questions if someone would be nice enough to answer some "stupid" questions for me.

1) What is the fundamental difference between this plugin and the standard ReplayGain routines/plugin that I have been using forever? In dumbed down terms, please.
2) If not already explained, is this plugin, based on that R128 method deemed "better" than RG or just an alternative. I saw mention of how it resampled to 192khz, or rather would like to...
3) Does this physically normalize the waveforms, or does it write tags like RG that are read and used to adjust peaks? read that it uses standard RG tags
4) This is probably unrelated, but it kept coming up in this thread, so I will go ahead and ask: I understand what sampling rate is, and from what I know, the two main choices (for converting between two) are the SoX and PPHS DSP's. Is either one of these "superior" or "preferred" over the other, or are they just different versions of the same thing, really? I have always wondered which to use when needed. I can research some more on that topic in other threads, but if anyone has a quick answer, that'd be great.

From what I could gather from reading the posts, this is essentially an alternative to ReplayGain, which is able to more accurately find the true peaks in tracks, or at least "more accurately" determine them? If you have already RG'ed your tracks, is there a strong reason to rescan using this plugin? I don't use like super high end equipment or anything, so...

Anyway. Thanks, and I hope I haven't bothered anyone by asking those questions... I'd just like to be more educated on this topic, as this R128 algorithm or method of scanning audio files is something brand new to me.

This post has been edited by Chinch: Mar 29 2011, 07:09
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Apr 17 2011, 16:12
Post #91





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



There have been a couple of fixes for libebur128. Will there be an update for this plugin?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mrinferno
post Apr 17 2011, 16:37
Post #92





Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 19-June 07
Member No.: 44533



i suspect most will likely choose to simply upgrade to foobar2000 v1.1.6 beta which now has native support for libebur128.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Apr 18 2011, 04:37
Post #93





Group: Admin
Posts: 4578
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



Yes, when 1.1.6 goes final, this component will be discontinued.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Apr 26 2011, 06:05
Post #94





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



Yea I just scanned my stuff with the new foobar2000 replaygain implementation, it's .01 variance from your plugin :/ I'm not gonna waste time re-scanning and trans-coding my FLAC's again it's not that much of a difference, but :/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Apr 26 2011, 16:44
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



QUOTE (SamDeRe81 @ Apr 26 2011, 07:05) *
it's .01 variance from your plugin

That might be a matter of rounding/truncating, the integrated RG scanner writes 2 decimals, like it always did. This plugin wrote 6 decimals. I can assure you, the difference is neglectable.

Edit: what I said seems to be the case for mp3, replaygain values in FLAC files are displayed with 6 decimals. I am very sorry for the confusion.

This post has been edited by GeSomeone: Apr 26 2011, 22:53


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Apr 26 2011, 20:12
Post #96





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



interesting ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Mar 3 2012, 21:27
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



R128Gain was updated with EBU R128-2, will you be updating your utility to work with it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Mar 3 2012, 22:25
Post #98





Group: Developer
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



re-read post #93 on this page...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Mar 4 2012, 00:22
Post #99





Group: Admin
Posts: 4578
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



Not to mention that this utility and foobar2000 itself use libebur128, not R128Gain, so any changes to R128Gain would have to be ported over to the other library.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
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: 26th July 2014 - 07:31