Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain? (Read 10825 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Hi there.
I've used Soundforge (started wt 4.5, now at 6.0e) for quite a time now, although only for quite basic operations, such as insert silence, normalize, cut 'n past and whatnot...
I used to normalize lowlevelnoise-audio-cds with good old soundforge, using 'average RMS power', what includes peak level done at the same in SF (as far as I know).
Now I heard about the highly praised WaveGain app., and only read positive results in the post here.
What do you think, is the quality in SF 6.0 compareable wt WG, or even better?
If not, I'm gonna change to WaveGain...
In case this question was asked before (which is prob. the case ;-), I'm sorry, didn' find anything in my searches...
thx
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #1 –
i've used soundforge for all editing/normalizing since it was first introduced and i LUV it, i know it inside and out 

i've never tried wavegain and i don't think i feel the need to... soundforge is my pick of the bunch 

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #2 –
My guess is their quality will be pretty much identical, it's just a case of how easy it is to do... wavegain you just select the files and it processes them - but I'm sure I saw a batch command function in Sound Forge 6
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #3 –
All right, if no one made some bad experiences, then Soundforge seems to be safe  As I said, I'm used to doing basic operation with SF, so I'm gonna stick with that.
I just wonderd, why everbody recommends WaveGain instead of Soundforge...
Well, maybe caus SF does cost a little bit more than WG... 
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #4 –
because wavegain can match volumes using replaygain methods and SF can't?

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #5 –
Quote
because wavegain can match volumes using replaygain methods and SF can't?

Uhm... I'm not very well informed concernig 'technical' questions...
I tried SF and WG (the last recently), and all I know is that in SF you are much more flexible how you want your gain.
So please explain, what excactly is relpaygain, and why should I go for WaveGain?
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #7 –
Replaygain is a recommended standard for normalizing volumes using average volume. The Replaygain standard suggests that music be played back at an RMS of 89dB. This can be implemented though a tagging system (with tags containing the recommended adjustments) or by alter the music itself. The direct alterations can be implemented with WaveGain or MP3gain and their ilk. Some formats like MPC just use the tag method, so the music itself isn't altered until playback.

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #8 –
Now I'm a little confused...
Sounforge doesn't use the tagging method, it uses an direct method (it changes peaklevel and the average rms power) so does this mean it also uses some kind of replaygain?
I still don't see the differences btw Soundforge and Wavegain... What different kind of altering method DOES Soundforge use then? 
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #9 –
well it would compare to wavegain or mp3gain in the sense that it implements gain adjustments directly rather than through metadata (tags).

replaygain however has specific ways to calculate RMS which are most likely different algorithms than you are using. No big deal, but basically mp3gain, wavegain etc. all will give exactly the same adjustments, while soundforge will probably be a bit different.

WMP9 has a similar feature. it saves it's stuff in id3v2 tags actually, but its not replaygain information - just some proprietary MS kind. Not to say it's inferiour or superiour, just different.

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #10 –
@ Jebus:
All right, thx for the explanation, now I got at least an overview...
Soundforge uses a non-metadata method (what is logical, regarding the the program  ), but the method may differ from the well tested one, used in e.g. WaveGain. What doesn't mean the quality have to be worse.
In my experience, Soundforge does it's job pretty good.
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #11 –
Then carry on, I say.

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #12 –
quality doesn't really enter into it, at least not in any meaningful way, what replaygain is concerned with is getting a *standardized* volume level that you can use to match the volume levels between all your albums, or individual tracks, which you would have learned had you actually read the replaygain site I posted a link to.

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #13 –
@ Shorty:
Well, I DID learn that, but this wasn't my original question (which doesn't mean I don't appriciate your answer). My Goal was, to see if anybody made bad experiences with Soundforge, and to look at the quality differences btw SF and WG.
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #14 –
well, for simply changing the volume to the level you want it at I doubt you'll get any difference at all, really.  Changing volume is a pretty straight-forward task.  I would think the only difference you'd see/hear is if you started talking about different dithering methods.

<edit> Actually I guess this would get a little more complicated if you raising volume levels and SF were adding some dynamic compression, which would certainly be possible using the average RMS technique you mentioned.  But for simply lowering volumes I don't think there's gonna be any meaningful difference.  Myself, I prefer to have everything center around the standardized volume level that replaygain uses, so I would use something that made it easy to do that, wavegain being one of those tools.  Foobar being another, as well as mp3gain. There's a pretty recent thread discussing using wavegain simply to analyze the wavs and then using that data to feed lame's --scale parameter with the replaygain value, as possibly being a better method than using mp3gain afterwards. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=10637&hl=

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #15 –
Quote
@ Shorty:
Well, I DID learn that, but this wasn't my original question (which doesn't mean I don't appriciate your answer). My Goal was, to see if anybody made bad experiences with Soundforge, and to look at the quality differences btw SF and WG.

The Beatles - Blackbird
Elton John - Love Song
Elton John -  Funeral for a Friend / Love Lies Bleeding
Human Speech

All give better results, concerning loudness, with RG than with SF.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #16 –
i believe wavegain uses the SPL measurement, not RMS. so in effect, the recommended level is 89dB SPL

of course, you can go higher, but it is not advice to push the levels above 92dB SPL. if you do, you risk distorting your music

oh yeah, i also need to mention that if all a person needs to do is normalize their audio files, wavegain is free while soundforge is a commercial product

digga: to answer you question short and simple, no i have not had bad experience with soundforge or wavegain. just don't forget to use dither after you change the gain regardless of which program you use
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #17 –
There are two types of quality being discussed here: the program's treatment of the bits in the audio file, and the program's ability to achieve the desired goal, namely adjusting the volume of all the audio files so they have equivalent loudness. For the former, I'd wager that Wavegain and Soundforge are equivalent in quality, as long as Soundforge is properly using dither. But for the latter, Wavegain is, on the average, unquestioningly better.

If you tell either Wavegain or Soundforge to lower the volume of your audio file by 1/2, you'll get approximately the same result from both programs. But if you tell both programs to set all the audio files to sound equally loud, Wavegain will give you a higher-quality result--the loudness of the audio files will be more closely matched. This is because Wavegain attempts to account for the perceived loudness of the audio, whereas Soundforge does a simple mathematical calculation that completely ignores the way people hear sounds. It doesn't matter whether you use Soundforge's Peak Level or RMS Power normalization routines; Soundforge doesn't use the "intelligent" algorithm that Wavegain does. More details can be found at the Replaygain websiteon this page.

So in a sense, Wavegain does give you higher quality than Soundforge, and you should use Wavegain when adjusting the volume.

(Sorry if I sounded a bit wordy in my post, but I just watched a 3-hour Noam Chomsky documentary and I can't speak in a concise manner anymore. )

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #18 –
Sometimes Warrior:
You are right, it's impossible reach the same loudness with all files of an album, I little time ago I found that win WavGain I can do this, and applying Hard Limiter in WavGain you can reach the SPL value that you want without clips, e.g. to reach 95 dB SPL, I use the hard limiter built in WavGain and set the gain value to +6 dB. I can't do this in SF, and the sound files never sounds at the same percieved volume after normalize with SF. I found that after replaygained wav files to 95 dB SPL with WavGain the average RMS levels in SF are between -17 dB to -10 dB, if I made the same in SF, e.g.: normalize an album to -14 dB RMS, the values are betweeen -15,5 dB and -14 dB RMS, this values are more closed in average RMS that with RG but doesn't sounds at the same volume. I use WavGain to reach the same volume in wav files when I burn audio cds for my friends, they hate that the albums that I burn sounds to the default 89 dB SPL becouse the volume is a little lower that the most of today albums, you know that the most rock/pop albums of today are between 94 to 100 dB SPL, 5 dB or more that the default 89 dB from replay gain. I don't burn audio cd for me anymore, I listen only original albums at my cd/dvd player, and listen replaygained albums in my PC in mpc and mp3 format at 89 dB SPL.-
MPC: --quality 10 --xlevel (v. 1.15s) (archive/transcoding)
MP3:  LAME 3.96.1 --preset standard (daily listening/portable)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #19 –
Suppose I just recorded an entire LP, or entire cassette tape (or whatever) into one big .wav file.  I haven't split the tracks yet (maybe I never will -- live material?), but would prefer to apply some general gain to the file, since the whole thing sounds too quiet -- the input level was too low.

Of what use is an "equivalent" loudness, in this case?  All the songs may be of widely differing volume, and they're all in the same file.  If I adjust the entire file to the Replaygain value using Wavegain, what meaning has it?  Is this the same thing as "album gain," or would I be just as well off doing peak normalization in this case?

Scenario2 -- this file is an entire LP side recorded from vinyl, and there are many loud clicks and pops.  I want to increase the overall gain, so to improve the efficiency of a click/pop filter -- in what way is Wavegain better than peak normalization?

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #20 –
1. yes, it'd be the same as using album gain.
2. no, peak is better in that case.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #21 –
SF does have an 'use equal loudness contour' function in its normalizing section, how it compares to replaygain's though I've no idea.  But it is in the same vein.

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #22 –
Quote
SF does have an 'use equal loudness contour' function in its normalizing section

That seems to be some kind of low- and high-passfilter, or am I wrong?
SF sais: ckeck this box, bla bla bla... compensate for high and low frequency audio.
Mid-range audio is somewhat highlted.
So it doesn' actually cut frequecys up from some value, but make the average part louder (or something like that... )
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #23 –
it doesn't do any filtering to your audio, it takes human hearing of different frequencies into account just like replaygain does. How similar SF's curve is to replaygain's curve, I couldn't say.

<edit> in other words, it is not an equalizer, it doesn't boost or cut any frequencies

Normalize - Soundforge Or Wavegain?

Reply #24 –
Quote
How similar SF's curve is to replaygain's curve, I couldn't say.

That would be an interesting topic for a comparison test. Let's say five different tracks, and let them go through e.g. Soundforge, Wavelab, CoolEdit *insert name of your favorite program*, and through WaveGain & MP3Gain.
Someone with two of theese golden ears (they must be fairly heavy, by the way ;-)) could compare...
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)