Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > Pros and Cons. It's not more meaningful either way.
sure it is, both as a matter of math and a matter of what you actually hear. Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > What you get is an average per disc, and not an average per album. I > believe that for albums distributed on two disks, it should be album > replaygain should be calculated as an average of all tracks on an > album. Double albums used to be distributed as 4 sides on vinyl - I > wouldn't normalise across for sets of tracks on the album. vinyl is a different animal, it doesn't really apply here. having said that, i would contend that if the volume was too low or too loud for any given side, you'd adjust the volume. but you can't apply RG tags to vinyl. i understand what you believe... i just disagree with it, both as a matter of math and as a matter of listening exp. it may be true that two discs for one album are very similar, and then all this wouldn't matter as much, but 1. how would you know unless you calculated them separately that they were similar, and 2. its going to be subjective to each listener as to at what point similar is no longer similar, so why not just sidestep the issue and do whats better mathematically and avoids the similar/non-similar judgment? Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > It's irrelevant whether double-disk albums are ripped with disc numbers > or as one album with contiguous track numbers if "treat multi-disk > albums as one album" is enabled. The effect will be that there will > only be one album replaygain value. ok... i don't think i said anything about that, or if i did i didn't mean to. what i did want to do is say that RG values for multidisc albums should be calculated per disc. i don't know if winamp will do that if the album name on two discs matches, but the disc number doesn't. this is b/c i don't really pay attention to that value, i instead say: "album name (disc 1)" or something like that, which i know you don't like, but doing so not only makes it easier to store and navigate, but allows for the more sensible per disc album RG setting. Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > If you rip with the disc number in the album name, or treat multi-disk > albums as separate albums, you will have one album replaygain value per > disk from that album. ok. i don't think i was saying different? Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > > >imagine if you had a 10 disc album, which is kinda what moonbase was > >saying... you could have a LOT of varience disc to disc that you are > >trying to compensate for with one single RG value for all discs. > > > I rip those with a volume number in the album title, because they are > generally not single albums, but collections of albums. eg. I have a > multi-disk collection by Klaus Schulze called "Jubilee Edition" that is > 25 disks. I haven't ripped that one yet, but when I do, I will rip as > 25 albums called "Jubilee Edition Volume 01 - Tradition & Vision", > "Jubilee Edition Volume 02 - Avec Arthur", etc. what about box sets? i mean why is two discs ok to do as one RG value, but not 3 or 4 or 10? my way is consistent across all source materials. Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > However, "Pink Floyd - The Wall" is ripped as one album. If mastered > correctly, such albums don't have much of a varience in average volume > between two disks. If they did, who's to say that that is not > intentional. I don't want a jump in volume between the track that > happens to be at the end of disk 1 and the start of disk 2 if it's not > meant to be there. thats ridiculous. the point of RG is to NOT have volume jumps. and if you place that much faith in the engineers and disc masters, who afterall aren't the artists, i don't know what else i can say. lets say i put in a multidisc CD player two discs from the same album. lets say i settle on one volume for the first disc. if when the second disc comes on, its too loud or too quiet, is it your contention that i should not adjust the volume? this is where per disc album RG values are useful. Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > Albums are albums, and tracks are tracks. Disks are largely parts of an > album, and irrelevant for album normalisation. Volumes are collections > of albums - each album would have album volume normalisation. come again? Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > Taking the averaging one step further in your way, you could forget disk > album averages and just use track replaygain. sure, but that wouldn't maintain dynamic range between songs on the same disc of an album. thats why album values exist in the first place. and i contend, based on the values i see between discs of the same album, that the artist/engineers/masterers only are concerned with the dynamic range differences between tracks on the SAME DISC, not the same album. if they were concerned with both discs as part of the same album, then they would be equal or close to equal in their album RG value per disc, and of course, sometimes this is the case, but more often it isn't. and either way, my way still always yields the most accurate result, whereas yours doesn't. Philip Meyer;379608 Wrote: > One step further would be to split each track into 10ths and have an > average volume per 10th of a track... that is of course nonsense, I'm > just pointing out that it doesn't make more accurate volume > normalisation. yes, it is nonsense, and has no bearing on this discussion. -- 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
