Originally posted by gnoshi 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).
Originally posted by Garf So, if anyone has an interest in keeping using the current Vorbis ReplayGain, the current suggested format looks like:REPLAYGAIN_ALBUM_GAIN=-6.43 dB REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=+1.20 dB REPLAYGAIN_ALBUM_PEAK=1.12443 REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=1.04343
Originally posted by 2Bdecided Is almost the same discussion happening in two threads here?
You see, the "level" as you want to define it is not intrinsically the level of the track. Why not? Because you'll get a (completely) different value depending on how you measure it! So, to be meaningful, you have to say "the level, measured <this way> is x dB". But even this isn't a great idea!The Replay Gain Proposal suggests a way of measuring the level, AND defines a reference level. Already Frank Klemm has improved the way of measuring the tracks "level". However, because there's a reference level for him to tie this to, he can do this without breaking compatibility. BUT if you only say "this is the level of this track when calculated by this method" then using any other (better?) method would break the whole system.
So, you can't say "the track is x dB loud", because you haven't said how you measured it, or what you're measuring it relative to.
My suggestion is simply that the output (when using the reference signal) should be 83 (as an absolute value) rather than 0 (as a relative value).
Besides, the peaks describe a property of the file. Level would do the same.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided All other things being equal, assuming a complete understanding of replaygain in the player, both are equivalent.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided "absolute": the player does this:a) read in replay gain valueb) subtract 83 from this valuec) apply the resulting value
Originally posted by 2Bdecided In short: adding 83 makes little difference (but is no use, and a small amount of trouble); changing to a true representation of "what's in the file" will cause many problems for little gain (pardon the pun).
Originally posted by Lear OK, I've mostly changed VorbisGain now, including a way to convert the old format to the new (haven't tested it yet though, so it isn't ready for release).
Besides, the peaks describe a property of the file. Level would do the same. (And do you really need the "REPLAYGAIN_" prefix then? )
Originally posted by Lear But there's another problem now. MP3Gain defaults to a "target level" of 89 dB, not 83. To be "compatible" with this, VorbisGain does the same, but also allows that to be changed (--target-level option). Then you can have different files where the gain is based on different target levels, and you can't tell what the level is just by looking at the tags. To avoid that, store the "absolute" level rather than the change needed to get to a certain target level. I.e., move the "--target-level" option from VorbisGain to the player (which is a better place, IMO).
Originally posted by Garf A little note: Vakor (Michael Smith), the vorbis-tools maintainer, has started work on adapting the tool to fit into the vorbis-tools set. He had some issues with the portability of the tool and found some bugs as well. You might want to give him a ring and sync up your improvements. (Dunno the email by hearth but should be easy to find)
There is no real technical reason to prefer one over another. I prefer whatever is more clearer.
I agree the level adjustment doesn't belong in the tool but in the players. But (*chimes*) it already _is_ there. That is what the preamp (or headroom) slider is for.
Originally posted by Lear Considering the amount of support here of my suggestion (i.e., none at all ), I guess that's what I'll do. I'll stick with 89 as a "target level" though.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided It's the calibration step that causes different calculations (e.g. mine and Franks) to fall on the same scale - take this away, and you've got a big disadvantage: no prospect of improving the calculation.
Originally posted by matthijsln I'm going to update my Winamp plugin this week, so should I use Frank's one, the orignal, or give an option to choose between both?
Originally posted by 2Bdecided I think you missunderstood his question.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided that's just the point. the track isn't 89dB loud. If you store REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_LEVEL = 89dB as Lear suggests, what you actually mean is "this track needs to be played at 89dB to make it 83dB loud."*Whereas REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN = +6dB means "increase this track by 6dB (to match the reference level)"
Originally posted by 2Bdecided OT: That's really bizarre - we both live in Essex, and your girlfriend and my wife both do cross stitch! Anyway...
Yes, I see it makes sense from a user's point of view to see a louder file having a bigger number. But hopefully the user will never have to look at the value - the whole process should just happen "in the background".
it's more compact to store values between +/- 30, rather than values between 60 and 110 (approx).
I do not think it's an option to (for example) store (1) "level" in Vorbis and (2) "gain" in mpc. That would just be asking for trouble and confusion. So unless BOTH the mpc and vorbis implementations agree to change, they should BOTH DEFINITELY stay as they are!
Another reason against (1) is that almost no one will have a calibrated system - to them 83 dB or 89 dB is just a (meaningless) number. Whereas "6dB louder than suggested" is still just a number, at least it gives you some idea of what you're doing. To know what 89dB means, you have to know it's 6dB louder than what's suggested. but still OK. In contrast, 100dB (which sounds nice and loud) just won't work (user thinks: "why not - my system can output that power"), whereas "+18dB above what's recomended" does sound like you're going to overload it!
Originally posted by 2Bdecided sam,that's just the point. the track isn't 89dB loud. If you store REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_LEVEL = 89dB as Lear suggests, what you actually mean is "this track needs to be played at 89dB to make it 83dB loud."*
Whereas REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN = +6dB means "increase this track by 6dB (to match the reference level)"
In either case, if you want it louder or quiter still, you'll just adjust the pre-amp and that value will be added to it.
Originally posted by Lear Really, my suggestion was simply that I thought it would be clearer - for the user - to specify a value like "89" rather than "+6". I.e., the reference level would be explicit rather than implicit.