slimpy;379564 Wrote: > This approach doesn't make sense at all. > If your way was better, wouldn't it even be more better to view each > track as an album because you will get an even more accurate and > meaningful value and even less variance? ;-)
no, b/c that wouldn't maintain the dynamic range between the tracks on the same disc. but thats exactly what you DON'T need to do between tracks on DIFFERENT discs of the same album name. my way is better. slimpy;379564 Wrote: > What you want to achieve when you calculate and use album gain is the > preservation of differences between individual tracks on one album. You > want to hear the differences between tracks just as they were on the > original recording. not on one album, but on one disc. thats how the music reaches you, per disc, not per album. the value per disc is more meaningful than per album. slimpy;379564 Wrote: > If your album has more than one disc and can be considered one > continuous piece of work (e.g. live recording, single recording > session, etc.) you should apply album gain for the whole album. It > would be plain silly to calculate gain per disc. the opposite is true. the two discs themselves will be different from each other. what if disc one had an album gain of -3.03 and disc two had an album gain of -13.57? would you really want to apply only ONE value to cover BOTH discs of that live album? slimpy;379564 Wrote: > In most cases it is not unnecessary to apply album gain per disc because > the whole album was already level-matched in the production process. > There won't be any unwanted differences between disc 1 and 2. By > applying album gain per disc you introduce a difference in volume level > between the discs that was not there in the first place. There is no > reason why disc 2 should be played back at a lower overall volume than > disc 1 only because it contains more "loud" tracks. This is especially > true for compilation albums. > > -s. IF there is little difference between the two discs (or more) of an album, then yes, the argument is academic... but you don't know that until you run the analysis. and regardless, i want each disc played to play at the same reference level so i don't need to adjust the volume knob. there is no better way to do that for a disc than album RG per disc. it maintains the dynamic range between tracks that were all mastered together on the same disc. thats how its supposed to be used. as to your last points, in my exp each disc is mastered differently... its not that unusual to have discs on the same album NOT MATCH levels. as to what degree this becomes an issue or not, thats purely subjective. but to say there is "no reason" to play one disc of an album back at a lower level than the other totally misses the point of RG tags in the first place! and as i have a background in radio/studio recording, etc... i can tell you that you place a lot of misplaced faith in an idea that says one disc is supposed to be louder or quieter than the other... i'd venture to guess that very few, if any artists, intentionally master their art that way, and i doubt the engineers do either. they normally simply try to maximize loudness, which is why so many values for RG are negative. my point again, and its a very simple one, is if you want a multi disc album to play back at one volume, it is best to do it PER DISC, b/c that method is most likely to result in fewer volume knob adjustments necessary, than a single value per all discs. (since afterall, the point of RG, is to maintain a consistent volume between source materials) -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.3.1b - Win XP Pro SP3 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57543 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
