Total Members Voted: 210
Originally posted by Emmettfish Quoth Randum:By playback data, I mean 'values that are passed to the player in order to give direction on how to play the audio contained therein.'
Originally posted by tw101 Question 1:If the issue is about putting 4 tags in the user-definable Vorbis tags area, what exactly are you trying to get the Vorbis team to agree to?Because classical music is my thing, I need quite a few extra tags on my ogg files. I need composers, opus no., original source (from piano rolls to 78 rpm to LP to CD), performers, orchestra, conductor... etc. I don't think I need any permission to create those tags, so if those RG tags are so important to you, why don't you just do it?What does "official support" exactly mean in this context? You want the vorbis encoder (oggenc) to also do RG caculation and store the tags? Or you want the the libraries to provide functions to read/write the tags? Or you want the reference decoder to be RG-enabled? Or...?
If we want the vorbis team to change the requirement so that only a RG-enabled decoder is a compliant decoder, they would have to break the promise, don't they?
Monty and Emmett never said this, so it could be just my imagination. But is it possible that there's a concern of loss of control? RG's development isn't under their control, and they might fear (legitimately, I think) that they'll have modify their specs again if something is changed on the RG front.
Some peole wonder why they don't send an army of promoters to hardware player developers and give them their fix point encoder for free.
Originally posted by tw101 I don't think I need any permission to create those tags, so if those RG tags are so important to you, why don't you just do it?
About the number of tags. I don't really get why tags other than the track gain tag are necessary. Yeah, I understand the concept of maintaining the relative loudness between tracks within an album. But if you're really listening through an album, isn't adjusting the volume knob once enough for the whole album? I guess I probably misunderstood something there, but my impression is that with those album gains, album peak, etc. you can listen through several albums without having to adjust the volume? Assuming that's correct, it's cool. But is it that important? To have three tags per file just to avoid tuning the volume once per album?
I guess some ideas are just hard for a non-RG fan to comprehend. I adjust volume depending on more factors than the loudness of the recording itself. It has to depend on the environment, time of day, what I'm doing, whether I'm wearing a headset or not...etc. I certainly can't program all these into the tags.
I guess all my questions circle back to the first one: if there's really nothing for the vorbis team to do except giving you their blessing, then there should be no problem at all. You write your own tools to write the tags, and ask player plugins or decoders to use them. You don't really need the permission of the vorbis team.
Frankly, I quite sympathize Monty and his team (how many people are there?). They've been swamped by demands. Some people want written specs, NOW! Some people want v 1.0, NOW! Some peole want very low bitrate encoding, NOW. Some people want even better audio quality, at even lower bitrate. Some peole wonder why they don't send an army of promoters to hardware player developers and give them their fix point encoder for free. And now this.
Originally posted by Lear That's what we've been doing. ReplayGain for Vorbis has been available for a couple of months now.
For increased player support it is nice if this (optional) feature is supported by the core libs and tools, to make it even simpler to implement.
Originally posted by tw101 What puzzled me was what you guys were up to by starting a poll here as if to put pressure on the Vorbis team to accept "something." Not that there's anything wrong with starting a petition, but I just had trouble understanding what the "something" really is. What do you want them to accept?
You want RG functions to be part of the official library. But I wonder how much effort on their part has to go into this to make it happen. I understand you guys have been doing most of the jobs, up till now. But wouldn't it require quite some effort on their part if RG is to be supported by the official set of libraries and tools?
My biggest concern is, will this delay ogg vorbis's progress toward v 1.0 noticeably?
Originally posted by Garf There is no need whatsover for a decoder to support ReplayGain in order to be compliant. It is a completely optional feature.
What do you mean, outside of their control? They control exactly what Vorbis wants to support and what not. If they don't like a part of it, they don't have to use it. That's exactly why were having this discussion.
Q4 has already been answered in this thread. Moreover, if you have no use for RG, any of its features will seem useless to you. (sounds logical, doesn't it?)
Paradox has done just that.
Originally posted by tw101 Ok, but how much different it is from the status quo then if it's optional. I mean, if you've got the tools and tags standardized, isn't it also up to the player/decoder developers to use it or not? I guess I've some logical barrier to understand your position clearly. If it's as easy as adding an additional library to the vorbis library set, and its use is completely optional, then what's the difference from what you've got now?
If what you want is a greater degree of integration into the libraries and tools, then I would guess the integration needs quite some effort on their part, too. No? (My concern has been stated in my reply to Lear.)
I mean further down the road. If they adopt your proposal and integrate RG into their tools and libraries. What if someday you (I mean you and other RG core developers) decide to make changes, what do they do? Yes, theoretically, they can keep what they have and refuse to implement your changes. But that isn't very realistic, isn't it? Once you've taken something in, it's hard not to follow its development.
If it's implemented in tags, I've no problem, for they don't bother me if I don't use them. But I'll be a little concerned if it's put into metadata (header) as some people suggested. Because that means it would bloat the header even if I don't use the feature at all. That's not to say I'll necessarily vote against it, though. Just concerned. But this is moot now since it seems you've abandoned the metadat route.
To one or a select few companies only, isn't it? There're still some hot air over on vorbis-dev mailing list, where people argue whether an independently developed free fix-point decoder would hurt Xiph's (potential) revenue. And some people are accusing Monty of trying to discredit the free deocodor in order to protect their own commercial interest, even though all Monty did was to clarify that a decoder capable of decoding RC3 files isn't necessarily compliant. Then he's further accused of withholding the specs (so no one know how to be fully compliant) in order to protect their own interest.
Originally posted by Garf This is the only thing there is discussion about. All the rest are side issues. The discussion is not about ReplayGain support or not. It's about _how_ to implement it.
This is a complete lie. Monty has explained _exactly_ what is wrong with the alternate fixed point decoders, and why they will break. The problem is that fixing the cause of that is a non-trivial programming exercise, and the author of the decoder is only interested in fixing it when it breaks.The current fixed point decoders won't hurt Xiph's income - they're GPL, and hence unusable for most commercial companies. It has been explicitly stated it was GPL just for those reasons.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided I didn't think my opinion would interest anyone... :-)
P.S. when did adding 16 bytes (or whatever it is) to a 5MB file become "bloating"? ;-)
P.P.S. Thanks for all your work on this Garf. I'm sure millions of users will thank you one day! (soon, I hope).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------P.S. when did adding 16 bytes (or whatever it is) to a 5MB file become "bloating"? ;-)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hmmm, many of my ogg files are far smaller than that. They don't use very high bitrate, and the tracks are short. (In classical music, some tracks are as short as less than 20 sec.)
Originally posted by tw101 <backing away> Sorry if I misunderstood you, and sorry if I somehow offended you (for you seem quite irratated). I've never meant to impede anything. My concern, from the POV of a user and vorbis supporter, is to see it reach the v1.0 finish line asap. And I raised some questions only because the issue was polled on the board, and I thought a wider range of input was solicitated. I didn't know the question was so narrowly defined. My apology. Ok? Please don't be offended.
I'm not sure what "lie" you're referring to. From your explanation, you mean those accusations that I relayed in my previous message, right? Well, I was only relaying the sentiment on the mailing lists and some other boards where some people aren't happy with what Monty or other Xiph's people are doing.I certainly didn't (don't) agree with them, and I believe I made clear that those accusations were false. I was using those accusations as an evidence of the pressure vorbis team is under. Nothing more. I meant no offense, and if I somehow managed to offend you, I'm sorry. Ok?
p.s. I didn't vote in this poll, since the question is so technical. Don't count me as one of those who vote "no".
Originally posted by 2Bdecided But no one is forcing you to include them, unless I'm very mistaken. Adding the replay gain tags is a separate optional process.
Originally posted by Garf You are right - while Dibroms intentions where no doubt good, a technical decision like this shouldn't be based on a vote of which most voters will not understand all issues involved.
Originally posted by Dibrom To clarify, of course I agree with you. The point isn't to bring about a decision based upon the poll itself. Rather, I created to poll to exemplify the fact that there are a good number of people interested in this issue. Both Paradox and segher had stated they had not received any emails on the topic at all and that this somehow implied there was very little interest in seeing this matter through, so it wasn't very important. While it is true that in relation to many of the other items on the TODO list, replaygain isn't so critical, the notion that people are not particularly interested is not. I wanted to show this and also drum up some more discussion and awareness of matters at hand here. I think so far it has been a successful endeavor.
Originally posted by JohnV All in all, the situation even inside Xiph is not clear regarding RG. One thing they agree though is "not right now, maybe later".My opinion is that your current suggestion won't get support from Xiph.