Originally posted by sam Also, storing a +/- could confuse a few: Does -6 mean I need to decrease the volume of this file by 6 to get to the 83, or does it mean this file is 6dB quieter then the 83 standard.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided Great!back to the issue in hand... what are the vorbis people saying at the moment about RG tags?
Originally posted by Emmettfish I have a very small staff, and they're very busy working on 1.0 of Vorbis and the Vorbis spec. I think it's clear to even the most casual observer that although replaygain support is important and useful, there are other, more pressing needs at the moment. That's number one, and that's outside the realm of even discussing replaygain.
Number two, I still am not convinced that adding replaygain tags is the best solution to implement replaygain. I am convinced that it would be the easiest solution, but I am not convinced that it would be the right one. Let me go back to my original point a little bit.
1.0 (and the spec) is due to be published very soon. Implementing a quick-and-dirty solution for replaygain is likely not a good idea, for a couple reasons. One, it's not a good idea to define temporary solutions in a 1.0 release. Two, if we do something we're going to change later, that means that you'll be bugging your player authors twice.
Please remember that we are basically volunteers. We work on this stuff full-time when we could easily go out and find well-paying jobs elsewhere. We do this because we love it, and because we think it's important. People tend to lose sight of the fact that we do good work, and we give it away.
You don't have to tell us that - most of the people that have been involved in this are in exactly the same situation, with the difference that they receive zip for their efforts.
Originally posted by Garf Lear, if updating the tool is finished and debugging and testing done, please give Peter P (WinAmp) and zinx at xmms.org a ring and ask them to update their player plugins as well (and explain the changes needed); awaiting a Vorbis reaction, we will want to update the players that already support the old proposal in any case.
Originally posted by Emmettfish Quoth Garf:I didn't mean to imply ...[snip]... I hope that's clear now.
I feel fairly secure that at the end of the day, the people who really want this feature will implement it themselves, for themselves. After all, they've been doing it for a while now already.
Originally posted by john33 I have no wish to get heavily involved in this discussion, but one thing is clear to me. The current and, for the near future, proposed solution holds the data in a place and in a way that lends itself very readily to conversion at some later date. Since it also, so far as I can see, causes no real problem where it currently resides, it is surely a fairly elegant ,if temporary, solution?Maybe I am misunderstanding something here and, no doubt, someone will point that out if it is the case, but since no other immediate solution seems to be on the table, this one works and can later be amended if appropriate without too much pain.
Originally posted by lijil It is still human readable, with the keyword REPLAYGAIN being enough for users new to replay gain to get more info on what the tag does. I don't see why the four values have to be labeled (or 'sub labeled'), most users will never edit them manually as text in the tag editor, and audiophiles would have no problem figuring it out. Whether you make the field size fixed (pos/neg sign required, zero padding, etc.) is really not that big of an issue, but if it were fixed it would IMO help to standardize the replay gain tag even further, just by setting some sort of template.
Originally posted by mijj This discussion on VorbisGain suggests there may be a lot more utility to the tags than just carrying bits of user information.Has there been any thought of there being more than one type of tag?
Sort of. There has been discussions about adding a metadata stream to Ogg Vorbis files, for storing data more suitable for machine interpretation, or that is otherwise unsuitable to store as a tag (such as lyrics, I guess). That would be a bit like the constant tags you suggest.
Originally posted by mijj < ... mijj contributes with a confidence and confusion borne of innocence and ignorance ...>... erm ... how about if you were able to include Java code as a hidden tag (and ignorable) - so you could enable a sort of user definable pre-processing facility. E.g. use it to allow for scrambling and unscrambling voice messages. ... allow calls to internet pages so you could be bugged by advertising while you play that particular Vorbis file. (.. erk!). ... Use the Java code to generate event triggers based on the coded sound for synchronisation with external processes... etc.
Originally posted by smok3 when turning on RG in mpc winamp decoder, it will turn down the volume even for the songs which doesnt have the RG tags (probably to some reference level?)