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: Replaygain or not to replaygain? (Read 32527 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: kjoonlee on
Quote from: puntloos on
Or am I missing some structural point here?

You've just reinvented peak normalization - edit: except it's being done on an album basis. Not very effective.




Well no, I recapped (not reinvented) my understanding of replaygain, but my addition is that at a certain point, the loss of actually tinkering with resampling at all will be not worth the 'gain' (i.e. a more even volume across albums).

Hence my suggestion of introducing a certain margin within which replaygain volume compensation will not be applied. More specifically: a LOT of my albums simply don't need replaygain, only a few are too soft overall. I would like replaygain to automatically 'fix' these way-too-soft ones, while not touching most of my albums.

Or is this already a feature of replaygain?

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #26 –
I have trouble understanding you. It looks to me as if you've misunderstood replaygain.

If only a few are too soft, scan just those files and tune the preamp values to your liking. (Assuming you can set preamp separately for scanned and unscanned files.)

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: kjoonlee on
I have trouble understanding you. It looks to me as if you've misunderstood replaygain.

If only a few are too soft, scan just those files and tune the preamp values to your liking. (Assuming you can set preamp separately for scanned and unscanned files.)


I think you've understood me correctly, the only problem is that I do not want to MANUALLY have to go out and find the albums that are too soft. Will take me ages. I would like replaygain to:

- SCAN all my audio files, and write replaygain album data
- ONLY actually do something with the replaygain data if the highest audio peak is below (say) -3dB

So the majority of my albums will NOT be replaygained, only the ones that are WAY too soft.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: puntloos on
the loss of actually tinkering with resampling at all will be not worth the 'gain' (i.e. a more even volume across albums).

I still don't understand what tinkering with resampling means. Which leads me to suspect you don't understand RG the same way I do.


Quote from: puntloos on
- ONLY actually do something with the replaygain data if the highest audio peak is below (say) -3dB

So the majority of my albums will NOT be replaygained, only the ones that are WAY too soft.

You need to stop thinking about highest peaks. RG calculation is a measure of *average* volume, not peak volume. A weighted average.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #29 –
... Of course you could just replaygain them all and adjust the preamp, i.e. using what it was intended for
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: puntloos on
- Replaygain will also never result in a LOWER volume then the current file volume, since we're not doing that RMS trick.
- Essentially RG will scan the entire album, find the highest peak, calculate the volume increase to get that peak to 0dB, and then apply that volume increase to all other tracks as well.

Or am I missing some structural point here?

Yes, you're missing a structural point. ReplayGain is doing RMS loudness, peaks are only calculated to avoid clipping. It's not 0db (relative volume), but 89db (absolute volume). Read: HA wiki, wikipedia.


Quote from: puntloos on
think you've understood me correctly, the only problem is that I do not want to MANUALLY have to go out and find the albums that are too soft. Will take me ages. I would like replaygain to:

- SCAN all my audio files, and write replaygain album data
- ONLY actually do something with the replaygain data if the highest audio peak is below (say) -3dB

So the majority of my albums will NOT be replaygained, only the ones that are WAY too soft.

OK, you are using foobar, not mp3gain, right? Replaygain is in tags, which can be manipulated like other tags in foobar if you do it right. What you could do is scan & tag your entire collection, then make an autoplaylist using "%__replaygain_album_gain% GREATER -4". Now you can erase the replaygain tags from those tracks.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #31 –
ReplayGain is there to make all your audio files sound about the same loudness. You can fix the loudness per-track or per-album.

It's not designed to make everything sound as loud as possible.

If you try to make your quieter albums louder, while keeping your loudest albums as loud as they were previously, you'll run into problems, as described here...

http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/faq_quiet.html

Reading all the FAQs might help...

http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/faq.html

Cheers,
David.
 

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: AnEnigma66 on
Quote from: greynol on
Album mode adjusts all the tracks by the same amount so that the loudest part of the loudest track has a level of 89dB and the relative levels between all of the tracks stay the same.  In track mode, all the tracks are adjusted so that the loudest part is 89dB.
Not trying to be a nitpicker, but is that an accurate statement?  I know you weren't trying to mislead the original poster and there are times when I don't always describe things using the right words, but what you said sounds like peak normalization to me, which is the whole reason Replay Gain was invented - to offer a better solution to peak normalizing.

Consider my statement as simplistic.  I realize that ReplayGain doesn't amplify based on the absolute peak like with normalization but instead determines the loudness by picking the amplitude from the 95th percentile from 50ms sections taking into account that the response of the human ear is not flat.

My point was to illustrate the difference between album mode and track mode and why a person might choose album mode even though the tracks are being shuffled.  I think people are too quick to suggest that track mode be used when mixing tracks.  Personally, I don't want a track that is quiet on an album be played at an equal volume as a loud track when shuffling.

Must we always have to get bogged down in minutia when trying to explain general concepts?  This isn't to say that I couldn't have done a better job however.    Perhaps instead of "loudest part" I should have said "loudest perceived part".

YAY FOR REPLAYGAIN!

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #35 –
Ack  - that explains it then. I was under the impression that replaygain does not (always) hurt the audio source by limiting and going for 'RMS values' etc.

Guess that makes replaygain useless for me, I really won't allow some program to randomly limit (and therby damage) my sound sources. A pity!

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: puntloos on
Ack  - that explains it then. I was under the impression that replaygain does not (always) hurt the audio source by limiting and going for 'RMS values' etc.

Guess that makes replaygain useless for me, I really won't allow some program to randomly limit (and therby damage) my sound sources. A pity!


Replaygain is not a limiter. 

---

Maybe you should read this website:

http://www.replaygain.org/

It'll take 5 or 10 minutes of your time, but it will save the rest of us hours of trying to explain it piecemeal to you.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #37 –
 HUH?

I hope that isn't in response to what I said.

In case I am in some way still misrepresenting the way RG works, visit the site and read for yourself.

EDIT:
@Mike, you beat me by a minute! 

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #38 –
Quote
ReplayGain is there to make all your audio files sound about the same loudness. You can fix the loudness per-track or per-album.

i was reading the link and RG seems very cool(and is of course)
i don't know how to use command lines    ,have any GUI where i can adjust the desired level for .wav?

thanks so much.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: jlt on
Quote
ReplayGain is there to make all your audio files sound about the same loudness. You can fix the loudness per-track or per-album.

i was reading the link and RG seems very cool(and is of course)
i don't know how to use command lines    ,have any GUI where i can adjust the desired level for .wav?

thanks so much.


foobar2000 or one of the frontends for wavgain.  A couple of the posts in this very thread explain how.


Quote
@Mike, you beat me by a minute!


Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: puntloos on
Ack  - that explains it then. I was under the impression that replaygain does not (always) hurt the audio source by limiting and going for 'RMS values' etc.

Guess that makes replaygain useless for me, I really won't allow some program to randomly limit (and therby damage) my sound sources. A pity!


I think you really need to re-read what ReplayGain is about as I'm not sure you're understanding what it does at all?

It doesn't randomly do anything, nor does it limit anything. Easiest way to see part of what it does...find a quiet album you have and a loud one, now apply replaygain to them using foobar or whatever, then listen to both albums back to back with replaygain turned on and in album mode. They now sound the same volume.

Oh yeah.... YAY FOR REPLAYGAIN!

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: AnEnigma66 on
Quote from: greynol on
Album mode adjusts all the tracks by the same amount so that the loudest part of the loudest track has a level of 89dB and the relative levels between all of the tracks stay the same.  In track mode, all the tracks are adjusted so that the loudest part is 89dB.
Not trying to be a nitpicker, but is that an accurate statement?  I know you weren't trying to mislead the original poster and there are times when I don't always describe things using the right words, but what you said sounds like peak normalization to me, which is the whole reason Replay Gain was invented - to offer a better solution to peak normalizing.

Consider my statement as simplistic.  I realize that ReplayGain doesn't amplify based on the absolute peak like with normalization but instead determines the loudness by picking the amplitude from the 95th percentile from 50ms sections taking into account that the response of the human ear is not flat.

My point was to illustrate the difference between album mode and track mode and why a person might choose album mode even though the tracks are being shuffled.  I think people are too quick to suggest that track mode be used when mixing tracks.  Personally, I don't want a track that is quiet on an album be played at an equal volume as a loud track when shuffling.

Must we always have to get bogged down in minutia when trying to explain general concepts?  This isn't to say that I couldn't have done a better job however.    Perhaps instead of "loudest part" I should have said "loudest perceived part".

YAY FOR REPLAYGAIN!


Not to bog you down in minutia... but the general concept wasn't clear either
The way I understand it, it isn't about the leveling the "loudest part" - which sounds a lot like peak normalization to me, too. I think the algorithm looks at the most prevalent level, not the loudest level or loudest perceived level at all.

And that it doesn't exactly take the most prevalent level (which on many recordings might be silence), but goes down to the 95% line (when all the levels have been sorted by prevalence, if I understand well) - that is, I agree with you, a detail which you may well omit when speaking in general concepts

Quote from: puntloos on
Guess that makes replaygain useless for me, I really won't allow some program to randomly limit (and therby damage) my sound sources. A pity!


Hi puntloos, thy seeker for purity
From all your recent topics, I get this feeling that you're afraid of things that "process your sound" in any way... and I know the feeling because that's the same feeling that I used to have. This tool is not doing any evil stuff; it just applies some gain, and may protect you from occasional digital clipping by smoothing out the peaks that go over full-scale after applying a positive gain.

off-topic: in fact, with your high-spec audio hardware, I would suggest you look into "processing" your sound a bit more: www.duffroomcorrection.com

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Replaygain is not a limiter.

No, the player using the replaygain data will need to use a limiter. That, or do it like i suggested, which is amplify the album to make the highest album peak exactly hit 0dB, no more.
Quote
Maybe you should read this website:
http://www.replaygain.org/
It'll take 5 or 10 minutes of your time, but it will save the rest of us hours of trying to explain it piecemeal to you.

Ah, good advice, after you read it yourself you'll perhaps realise your derogatory remarks only made you look silly.

Quote from: Patsoe on
Not to bog you down in minutia... but the general concept wasn't clear either
The way I understand it, it isn't about the leveling the "loudest part" - which sounds a lot like peak normalization to me, too. I think the algorithm looks at the most prevalent level, not the loudest level or loudest perceived level at all.

And that it doesn't exactly take the most prevalent level (which on many recordings might be silence), but goes down to the 95% line (when all the levels have been sorted by prevalence, if I understand well) - that is, I agree with you, a detail which you may well omit when speaking in general concepts

Hi puntloos, thy seeker for purity
From all your recent topics, I get this feeling that you're afraid of things that "process your sound" in any way... and I know the feeling because that's the same feeling that I used to have. This tool is not doing any evil stuff; it just applies some gain, and may protect you from occasional digital clipping by smoothing out the peaks that go over full-scale after applying a positive gain.

off-topic: in fact, with your high-spec audio hardware, I would suggest you look into "processing" your sound a bit more: www.duffroomcorrection.com


Hey patsoe, you're right .. my philosophy basically is: try to create an audio chain that alters the original 'waveform' (if you will) as little as possible. Adding noise/coloring or even this DRC stuff is perfectly acceptable, but that should be added by choice. Thats why I don't like tube amplifiers either, they add coloration that sometimes will make stuff sound 'sweeter' but just as often over-sweeten stuff when a recording enigineer decided to already add a bit of sound-fluff.

Thanks for the link btw, I was aware of the technology but maybe doing it in my setup might actually be doable and a worthwhile experiment.

Now back to the original discussion. Let me recap my point of view REALLY quickly:

- Replaygain determines the RMS value of tracks, or albums. This in itself is OK. Do what you will.

The thing I have a problem with is this:

IF an album comes out below the goal RMS (say the album RMS is -20dB and the goal RMS is -10dB), then the replaygain player will 'turn up the volume'. Great, until you realise the sporadic peaks would be amplified over 0dB, i.e. clipping. Oops, well then hard limiting is engaged, compressing that specific peak. To me, this compression is totally unacceptable. One can debate if, and how well you can hear this effect, but call me an audiophile, Id prefer it not to happen if I can help it.

Or, as the replaygain site says, turn down the playback level ('goal RMS setting' if you will). And this is specifically why I would want, as Ive indicated from the start, replaygain to ONLY do peak normalisation upwards, and ONLY if a significant gain can be made. If an album's PEAK level doesn't come above -20, then by all means, make that peak 0dB. But if the album's peak is at -0.0000001dB, then less math is better. Hence my suggestion to make a 'futility limit'.

As for albums that are (say) at -5dB RMS, i.e. way too loud, then sure, turn them down a bit, the damage is probably done already, no need to unnecessarily scare me after playing a track off a softer album

All in all, I think replaygain could be a useful tool to improve the volume levels of albums by turning down the too-loud ones, and turning up the too-soft ones if possible without ANY clipping/limiting. The only way to do this is as I described, I think.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: puntloos on
To me, this compression is totally unacceptable. One can debate if, and how well you can hear this effect


Well, I suppose you might notice the loss of dynamic range in extreme cases.
You can get the behaviour you want by setting the software's preamp such that there's no limiting needed in any case. But then you may be losing resolution because most albums will be played so much quieter...

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Patsoe on
Quote from: puntloos on

To me, this compression is totally unacceptable. One can debate if, and how well you can hear this effect


Well, I suppose you might notice the loss of dynamic range in extreme cases.
You can get the behaviour you want by setting the software's preamp such that there's no limiting needed in any case. But then you may be losing resolution because most albums will be played so much quieter...


Indeed. I am very very keen on eliminating any distortion unless absolutely necessary, or strictly justifiable. I would like all my CDs to 'perceptually' sound equally loud as much as the next guy but Im not willing to sacrifice any quality for it. I would therefore opt for the best approximation/improvement path. Hence my other topic: Perfect Volume Control?.. from this topic Ive 'decided' that I wouldnt mind some volume tweaking, especially when it's done in the 24bit domain.

Incidentally it turns out Windows Vista has the DRC stuff built in.. interesting..

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #46 –
puntloos - I think you're being needlessly exact about this. If you want exactly the original sound of the band, why not go to an unplugged live gig with just you in the audiance? Seriously, there's nothing wrong with some modification.
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: ...Just Elliott on
puntloos - I think you're being needlessly exact about this. If you want exactly the original sound of the band, why not go to an unplugged live gig with just you in the audiance? Seriously, there's nothing wrong with some modification.


Heh, well, that might be a different discussion. Why do some people buy $500/bottle wine while others feel that $5 wine is just fine.... to each their own. In my case I am simply making an effort keep the audio as untouched as I possibly can. (short of actually going to concerts, obviously, I do that too but I dont think that's a relevant  here)

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #48 –
Quote from: ...Just Elliott on
puntloos - I think you're being needlessly exact about this. If you want exactly the original sound of the band, why not go to an unplugged live gig with just you in the audiance? Seriously, there's nothing wrong with some modification.
Not only that but I think puntloos is assuming that replay gain results in tracks getting amplified.  Most of the time they get attenuated (even with the reference increased from 83dB to 89dB).

@Patsoe, my nitpicking friend :
The 95th percentile may very well be in the loudest perceived part.  It depends on how dymanic the music is.  For compressed music, you are right, the 95th percentile may exist throughout the track.  HOWEVER, the perceived loudest part does not mean the same thing as peak level, no matter how you want to spin it.  AGAIN, my point was the difference between album mode and track mode and that track mode isn't necessarily the best solution for shuffling or a compilation.  Perhaps the term "perceived volume" or "perceived loudness" instead of "loudest perceived part" will finally put eveyone's mind at ease?  I'm still guessing not.

Replaygain or not to replaygain?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: greynol on
@Patsoe, my nitpicking friend :
The 95th percentile may very well be in the loudest perceived part.  It depends on how dymanic the music is.  For compressed music, you are right, the 95th percentile may exist throughout the track.  Perceived loudness does not mean the same thing as peak level, no matter how you want to spin it.  But AGAIN, my point was the difference between album mode and track mode and that track mode isn't necessarily the best solution for shuffling or a compilation.  Perhaps the term "perceived volume" instead of "perceived loudness" will finally put eveyone's mind at ease?  I'm still guessing not.


Hehe, actually I thought for once I wasn't nitpicking

Please review my previous post, the key difference compared with your statement is in the word "prevalence".

Anyway, I see the point of using audiophile/album mode

edit - just to clarify, we're still bickering (lol) about this line:
Quote
Album mode adjusts all the tracks by the same amount so that the loudest part of the loudest track has a level of 89dB...

and the "proposed amendment" would get something like this instead:
Quote
Album mode adjusts all the tracks by the same amount so that the perceived average level of the loudest track becomes 89dB...

...where "perceived" says that on tracks with a lot of silent bits in it, those are disregarded...