>But this part: > >> Encoder authors are advised to >> take this into account. For example, it is more robust for a >> post-processing application to performing track normalization to update >> the 'output gain' field and write a comment 'R128_TRACK_GAIN=0' than to >> put the normalization value directly in the comment." > >Possibly needs to give some slightly different advice, at least for the >case where R128 normalisation is something that someone retrofits to >a recording that was previously mastered to some acceptable level, to >avoid actually losing useful information about the original in that case. > >Does that seem like it would cover what you're worried about? > >Do you have some proposed language for what you'd like us to recommend >people do if they want to retrofit R128 normalisation to recordings?
I hadn't considered language that goes any further than leaving the issue unspecified. Actively encouraging encoders not to put R128 gains into the output gain field seems to go directly against a key design goal for Opus. Although I'd be happy to see this particular case recognised, do we want to to second-guessing users and filling the spec with exceptions? In an ideal world I'd still like to see a solution that produces normalised output by default for all players, with sufficient information for more advanced players to "de-normalise" out a specific R128 gain when needed. --ian _______________________________________________ codec mailing list codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
