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: MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME (Read 5498 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

I am at a loss and have not found a simple explanation in a search.  I have three large directories of compressed MP3 audio files.  Which would be the better gain adjustment tool?  And what about LAME automatically adding gain?  And what about adding it to the headers?  I would like the option of removing gain, should I want, down the line.

Thanks for whatever straightforward (simple) explanation you can provide.   
Nov schmoz kapop.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #1 –
As you have already encoded I would say you are down to ReplayGain and MP3Gain (or foobar's new "Apply ... to MP3 data" option).  Using LAME you would need to use the --scale switch while encoding.

If you are playing in foobar at all times then ReplayGain would be best.  It is most accurate, and does not amend your audio data.  It is just more tags for your files - easily removed if you feel the need.

However, if you plan to play the files in a non-RG aware player then MP3Gain is the way to go.  MP3Gain will amend the audio data, but without re-encoding - it just amends a "volume value" AFAIK.  Using MP3Gain you can add an APEv2 tag to the file to enable you to undo the changes, if you feel the need.  In foobar 0.8.3 this may have caused issues with ID3 tags, but in 0.9 this is no longer an issue, as all tag types are read.  Whether you will ever feel the need to undo the changes is another question.
I'm on a horse.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #2 –
OK, I encoded all the files as LAME preset standard or now, V2.  Watching the DOS window shows that RG is applied to each file as a final act of encoding.  So, I would think I have to 1) remove this RG as it is by track and 2) re-encode using fb2k with the multiple album option.  Now, how about updating the MP3 tags?  Should I?  Why?

It is easy enough, just select the directories, start it going and go to bed. 

Thanks for any insight you can provide.  I can code COBOL/JCL/DB2 like an ace, but some of this codec stuff has me perplexed.   
Nov schmoz kapop.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #3 –
Quote
OK, I encoded all the files as LAME preset standard or now, V2.   Watching the DOS window shows that RG is applied to each file as a final act of encoding.  So, I would think I have to 1) remove this RG as it is by track and 2) re-encode using fb2k with the multiple album option.  Now, how about updating the MP3 tags?  Should I?  Why?

It is easy enough, just select the directories, start it going and go to bed. 

Thanks for any insight you can provide.  I can code COBOL/JCL/DB2 like an ace, but some of this codec stuff has me perplexed.    
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=373085"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It doesn't matter. Just do a RG scan with foobar using whatever setting you need. If you want to make your use album mode, then select "Scan as albums using tags".

You don't need to remove the RG info from the encode process. In fact, I think it just says it was RG'ed, but not actually.
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #4 –
Quote
It doesn't matter. Just do a RG scan with foobar using whatever setting you need. If you want to make your use album mode, then select "Scan as albums using tags".

You don't need to remove the RG info from the encode process. In fact, I think it just says it was RG'ed, but not actually.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=373114"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Vato mio, muchas gracias. Yo voy ahora!  Thanks for the help.  Animo!   
Nov schmoz kapop.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #5 –
De nada (you are welcome)

I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #6 –
Quote
De nada (you are welcome)


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=373132"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



entiendo.  hasta luego. 
Nov schmoz kapop.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #7 –
Quote
It doesn't matter. Just do a RG scan with foobar using whatever setting you need. If you want to make your use album mode, then select "Scan as albums using tags".

You don't need to remove the RG info from the encode process. In fact, I think it just says it was RG'ed, but not actually.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=373114"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Vato mio - I find that the option to encode by directory structure is the best option as so many of the albums are funky with combos of artists or some other goofy thing.  I even have the same album name by two different artists.  Getting a viable sort order was an exercise in frustration, and then I saw the "by directory" option.  I do not know if Peter thought of this himself or if it was suggested to him.  No matter, it is a great option for directories with lots of tracks.  I have ~14,000 so it gets plenty weird. 

Again, thanks for the help.

BTW, how was the cabbage?   
Nov schmoz kapop.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #8 –
Lame does not apply any gain setting from ReplayGain. It only stores the computed value into the Lame/Info header.

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #9 –
So if i play in winamp, I should use the mp3gain program instead of "apply" gain in foobar?
 

MP3Gain vs ReplayGain vs LAME

Reply #10 –
Quote
So if i play in winamp, I should use the mp3gain program instead of "apply" gain in foobar?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=375370"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


foobar2000 has the exact same function as of version 0.9.