[TheSonicTruth]

once you have scanned some files in foobar so they have the gain metadata, you can right click -> "replaygain" -> "apply track replaygain to file content" or same with album replaygain. you will get a warning that it's not a reversible process so you might want to do that on a copy ^_^.
or if you want you can add that operation while converting your files. when you use the "convert" tool in foobar(right click on selected files -> "convert" and the "..." so you have access to the options), in the processing option of the converter you can select which gain metadata you want applied and the file will be encoded with that(like it would for any other DSP you would add there like some EQ, crossfeed, or whatever). both give you the file at that gain instead of just a tag that something must understand and apply on the fly while playing the track. I do this all the time for files I put on my old and dumb DAPs.

My Foobar was free. So while I can scan files to determine how much replay gain is needed, I don't have that "apply track replay gain" option.

Also, I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of how the actual software applies the gain.

 

[castleofargh]

My Foobar was free. So while I can scan files to determine how much replay gain is needed, I don't have that "apply track replay gain" option.

Also, I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of how the actual software applies the gain.

you don't have something like this?


I guess it's possible as I've added too many stuff to foobar to count, but I don't see anything that looks like it would change the functions of replaygain. as comonents I have ReplayGain Scanner(well, replaygain) and ReplayGain override which I believe is to let me pick the replay gain action on playback depending on how I play my music(like if I select shuffle playback I can activate the per track gain but if I play by default I can use per album or nothing at all and I don't have to go switch myself every time).

 

[gregorio]

While IQ tests are very flawed (they have a cultural bias), there's no such thing as a negative number.

Yes I know, I was just following along with the analogy.

[1] You know what, Mr. Calbi?
[2] You're a nasty, bitter individual, regardless of how many gold records might be on your wall.
[3] Belittling someone, telling them 'they have everything backwards', that they're 'obfuscating' matters,
[3a] all political tools used to cover one's butt when they're confronted with someone who knows a thing or two about that person's profession.
[4] I'll definitely be suggesting that folks take their mastering business elsewhere!

1. Nope, I've no idea what Mr. Calbi knows. I've never met or even communicated with him. You can't even get your attempted doxxing right!
2. You're the one making the insults and attempting to dox!
3. Actually getting everything backwards and obfuscating matters is the big problem here in the science forum, telling that person they've got it backwards (refuting their falsehoods) isn't, in fact it's encouraged! How after all this time do you still not understand this simple fact?
3a. Again, you're under a delusion! There are many thousands of things to know about TV mixing and many thousands of other things to know about music mastering. Someone who knows one or two of those things is NOT an expert, they're pretty much the opposite of an expert and if they think they are an expert then they're delusional!!!
4. Me too, I've never suggested that my clients go to Mr. Calbi.

[1] Interacting with people who play mind-games and tell you that the bright object shining down from the sky at noon isn't the sun tends to do that to me.
[2] And I'm prod to be a PITA to so called big industry professionals.
[2a] I know a lot more than some of you give me credit for ...

1. Interacting with people looking up at the midnight sky but believing it's noon and therefore insisting that the bright object shining down on them is the sun, will always get the same response: You're ignoring or are ignorant of some of the facts and your assertion is therefore completely false, that bright shiny object is NOT the sun, it's the moon! The first thing a sane person would do is check their facts but not you. You just bleat about being told you're completely wrong, pay the facts "no mind" and therefore blindly continue being completely wrong, so you're refuted again, which you bleat about even more and so on ad infinitum!

2. I too would be proud to be a PITA to big industry professionals BUT ONLY if I actually had my facts straight. If I had the facts completely backwards, then in effect I'd be proud of repeatedly being an ignorant fool!
2a. Then why don't you demonstrate it for a change, instead of demonstrating the exact opposite? What's actually happening is that you're giving yourself unlimited credit for a very limited amount of knowledge! Furthermore, understanding only comes from knowledge of all the pertinent facts, if you're paying some of the pertinent facts "no mind" then you're even more likely to have a false understanding than someone with no knowledge at all, hence the old cliche "a little knowledge is dangerous"!

[1] "Modern CDs have exactly the same dynamic range as vintage CDs..." Of course they do - the format itself that is. What is put on them - then vs recently, does NOT.
2. One would have to be either deaf, dead, or living in the Amazon rain forest to not recognize that.

1. Yes it does and you've been provided with reliable evidence/proof. If you disagree, then this being the science forum, present reliable evidence/proof to the contrary!

2. That's not reliable evidence/proof, it's just an insulting assertion that you've made-up, don't you know the difference? Do you really expect to be given "credit" for this?

[1] Therefore, by definition, modern CDs have the same dynamic range as always... What manifests itself as higher average loudness is NOT a reduction in dynamic range (according to the proper definition of that term). It is in fact a reduction in the crest factor (the average variation between the average level and the peak levels).
[2] I would also disagree with your claim that it is "a technically incorrect procedure that violates every fundamental of recorded sound". It certainly isn't a good way to achieve an accurate reproduction of the original... which would make it a bad idea if that's your gaol. It is absolutely possible to make a recording on a CD that retains most of the dynamic range of the original performance. ... And, personally, I generally prefer recordings that are mixed that way.

Again, I agree in principle with your post but there are a couple of points which aren't quite right.

1. I agree up to the point that "it is in fact a reduction in the crest factor". Certainly the reduction in crest factor correlates with the progression of the loudness war and indicates more compression/limiting (particularly look-ahead limiting). However, crest factor isn't the only factor and indeed crest factor is not part of the calculation of loudness. What manifests as higher average loudness is a higher, frequency adjusted, RMS. Frequency is a huge part of the perception of loudness, it's part of the loudness wars and crest factor does not account for frequency.

2. Again, I agree entirely, up to the last two sentences. Yes, it is possible to maintain the dynamic range of the original performance but typically it's highly undesirable to do so. Even in the case of an acoustic classical music performance, it's typically desirable to reduce the dynamic range somewhat, because the dynamic range recorded is typically greater than the dynamic range the audience would perceive. When it comes to popular genres (rock/pop/electronic/etc.) the situation is far more drastic and I don't see how you could have developed such a preference. Typically, a mix with no dynamics processing never exists and even if one does, it only exists for a few minutes and is almost certainly heard by no one except the engineer. Typically: Half the lead vocal is near inaudible and the lyrics completely unintelligible, the drumkit sounds like a toy drumkit being played in a toilet and the guitars sound like they're playing a different piece (albeit in the same key). It sounds terrible and barely even recognisable, no one would prefer that but because it typically sounds so bad at that stage, no one is allowed to hear it, commonly not even the musicians themselves!

G

 

[bigshot]

And I'm prod to be a PITA to so called big industry professionals.

I suppose negative attention is better than no attention at all. I don't know if that's going to carry you very far though. It must feel weird to have so little going for you that you have to go into internet forums and pick fights over stuff you only half understand. It kind of makes me feel sorry for you.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Yes I know, I was just following along with the analogy.



1. Nope, I've no idea what Mr. Calbi knows. I've never met or even communicated with him. You can't even get your attempted doxxing right!
2. You're the one making the insults and attempting to dox!
3. Actually getting everything backwards and obfuscating matters is the big problem here in the science forum, telling that person they've got it backwards (refuting their falsehoods) isn't, in fact it's encouraged! How after all this time do you still not understand this simple fact?
3a. Again, you're under a delusion! There are many thousands of things to know about TV mixing and many thousands of other things to know about music mastering. Someone who knows one or two of those things is NOT an expert, they're pretty much the opposite of an expert and if they think they are an expert then they're delusional!!!
4. Me too, I've never suggested that my clients go to Mr. Calbi.



1. Interacting with people looking up at the midnight sky but believing it's noon and therefore insisting that the bright object shining down on them is the sun, will always get the same response: You're ignoring or are ignorant of some of the facts and your assertion is therefore completely false, that bright shiny object is NOT the sun, it's the moon! The first thing a sane person would do is check their facts but not you. You just bleat about being told you're completely wrong, pay the facts "no mind" and therefore blindly continue being completely wrong, so you're refuted again, which you bleat about even more and so on ad infinitum!

2. I too would be proud to be a PITA to big industry professionals BUT ONLY if I actually had my facts straight. If I had the facts completely backwards, then in effect I'd be proud of repeatedly being an ignorant fool!
2a. Then why don't you demonstrate it for a change, instead of demonstrating the exact opposite? What's actually happening is that you're giving yourself unlimited credit for a very limited amount of knowledge! Furthermore, understanding only comes from knowledge of all the pertinent facts, if you're paying some of the pertinent facts "no mind" then you're even more likely to have a false understanding than someone with no knowledge at all, hence the old cliche "a little knowledge is dangerous"!



1. Yes it does and you've been provided with reliable evidence/proof. If you disagree, then this being the science forum, present reliable evidence/proof to the contrary!

2. That's not reliable evidence/proof, it's just an insulting assertion that you've made-up, don't you know the difference? Do you really expect to be given "credit" for this?



Again, I agree in principle with your post but there are a couple of points which aren't quite right.

1. I agree up to the point that "it is in fact a reduction in the crest factor". Certainly the reduction in crest factor correlates with the progression of the loudness war and indicates more compression/limiting (particularly look-ahead limiting). However, crest factor isn't the only factor and indeed crest factor is not part of the calculation of loudness. What manifests as higher average loudness is a higher, frequency adjusted, RMS. Frequency is a huge part of the perception of loudness, it's part of the loudness wars and crest factor does not account for frequency.

2. Again, I agree entirely, up to the last two sentences. Yes, it is possible to maintain the dynamic range of the original performance but typically it's highly undesirable to do so. Even in the case of an acoustic classical music performance, it's typically desirable to reduce the dynamic range somewhat, because the dynamic range recorded is typically greater than the dynamic range the audience would perceive. When it comes to popular genres (rock/pop/electronic/etc.) the situation is far more drastic and I don't see how you could have developed such a preference. Typically, a mix with no dynamics processing never exists and even if one does, it only exists for a few minutes and is almost certainly heard by no one except the engineer. Typically: Half the lead vocal is near inaudible and the lyrics completely unintelligible, the drumkit sounds like a toy drumkit being played in a toilet and the guitars sound like they're playing a different piece (albeit in the same key). It sounds terrible and barely even recognisable, no one would prefer that but because it typically sounds so bad at that stage, no one is allowed to hear it, commonly not even the musicians themselves!

G

RE: Modern vs Vintage CDs

Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one?

If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?

 

[KeithEmo]

You do not HAVE TO lower the volume.
You find the mastering style of many modern engineers to be unpleasant...
And so you choose to reduce the volume...

How you interpret the explanation is a matter of how you look at the situation itself.
A modern CD has the same physical dynamic range as an old one...
The loudest sounds can be, and probably are, just as loud...
And the quietest sounds are just as quiet.

Dynamic range refers to the range between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds...
In this case, the range between those two has remained the same...
All that has changed is how the person mastering the disc has chosen to use that range.

A good analogy might be with painting...
Black paint is still black, and white paint is still white, but some artists choose to paint brighter paintings than others.
(There could even be a trend where brighter paintings become popular... but the range between black and white hasn't changed.)

RE: Modern vs Vintage CDs

Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one?

If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?

 

[james444]

RE: Modern vs Vintage CDs

Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one?

If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?

I think the Sound On Sound article explains that pretty well:

Look at the mean distribution curve for songs produced in 2007. It peaks at a higher level than the mean curve for 1967 songs. This means the songs are generally louder in 2007. Then look at the 'widths' of both curves: they're comparable, which basically means that something closely related to dynamic variability hasn't changed between 1967 and 2007. Now look at the little indentation at the right of the 2007 curve: songs from this year feature a density of high-level samples that's unnaturally high: level distribution suddenly stops following Gauss's normal distribution near the high levels. Compare the shapes of the two curves: it looks like the blue one was literally 'pushed' towards the right. This shows the result of brickwall limiting.

To go on with the comparison with images, it's as if, for the last 20 years, all pictures in books and magazines have been getting brighter and brighter. There are still deep blacks, the contrast remains intact, but all images look brighter. This is illustrated with the Tower Bridge pictures on the image. It's as if everything these days is supposed to look 'flashy', even though common sense suggests there are some images that shouldn't look flashy at all, in any situation. This is all the more true in the case of audio content, for which 'brighter' doesn't simply mean a higher density of clearer pixels. It also means reduced crest factor, envelope modifications, use of the second loudness paradigm and, in the worst cases, distortion. Common sense suggests that although there is nothing wrong with these characteristics as such, they shouldn't be on virtually all records.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

You do not HAVE TO lower the volume.

Of course I do - my own ears tell me the f'king modern CD, or remaster of vintage, is LOUDER!

Keith, to be frank, I'm sick of yours, and Gregorio's, and Bigshot's, and everyone else's play on words and mind-games in here.

If my wife tells me it's too fking loud, then it's TOO F'KING LOUD

 

[bfreedma]

Of course I do - my own ears tell me thr f'king modern CD, or remaster of vintage, is LOUDER!

Keith, to be frank, I'm sick of yours, and Gregorio's, and Bigshot's, and everyone else's play on words and mind-games in here.

If my wife tells me it's too fking loud, then it's TOO F'KING LOUD

Words to consider: "It can't be everyone else all the time".

Have you ever thought of taking a step back and giving consideration to the possibility that the communications issue is on your end? Or the irony that you keep calling out others for being insulting while posting pictures of horses, cursing constantly and doxing (failed)?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Words to consider: "It can't be everyone else all the time".

Have you ever thought of taking a step back and giving consideration to the possibility that the communications issue is on your end? Or the irony that you keep calling out others for being insulting while posting pictures of horses, cursing constantly and doxing (failed)?

On "my" end??

I've got clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, telling me that a certain CD of mine ISN'T really louder than the other, given the same volume setting, even when my OWN EARS tell me otherwise, and you're telling me the communication issue is with me?

Well I'll tell you something: I've got a very big casino to sell you!

 

[GearMe]

On "my" end??

I've got clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, telling me that a certain CD of mine ISN'T really louder than the other, given the same volume setting, even when my OWN EARS tell me otherwise, and you're telling me the communication issue is with me?

Well I'll tell you something: I've got a very big casino to sell you!

If someone tells you "Use your ears" - they're probably a politician...

(sorry it seemed to fit the 'discussion)

 

[bigshot]

SonicTruth, sit down and hush. This is the kind of behavior that gets people thread banned. You don't want that to happen to you again, so treat others with respect- don't insult people or try to dox them, engage with others- don't rant at them, and keep with the flow of the conversation- don't keep dragging it back to your pet subject when no one else has any further interest in discussing it.

 

[bfreedma]

On "my" end??

I've got clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, telling me that a certain CD of mine ISN'T really louder than the other, given the same volume setting, even when my OWN EARS tell me otherwise, and you're telling me the communication issue is with me?

Well I'll tell you something: I've got a very big casino to sell you!

Rather than using your ears, why don't you use an SPL meter and take the possibility of bias out of the equation. Even though I'm not sure that's what others are telling you.

And again, you to accuse others of being insulting and make that post...

 

[castleofargh]

oh please shoot me now...

quasi-modo ON:
personal attacks = no
how freaking hard is it to follow that one simple rule?

I don't know who started or how much went down because TBH I'm super bored with this topic and don't read a lot of it(like when I come and 3 pages have been added, I close the tab). right now I'm still in that grey area where things aren't right but I do nothing. it's not like I'm fine with that clever "no u" level of argument that always occurs when someone starts attacking the messenger instead of the message. but why do that when personal attacks = no ?
the reason why I'm not moderating is laziness and the complexity of the task. as doing it properly would require that I delete obviously all the improper posts, but also all the quotes and direct replies. each time a post has relevant content and some attack, I have to weight the pros and cons and decide if I should delete(I can't edit your posts anymore since the new forum so it's all or nothing). but then if I remove something significant, the entire page might become an unreadable mess without context, so then what do I do? remove the entire thing? and all the people who did nothing wrong wonder why they got unfairly censored by that dickhead modo. it's a real pain in the butt to moderate entire pages because not only one guy didn't follow the rules, but then several others replied to it and just added oil to the fire.
if something has no place on this forum, ignore the kid who did it and report the post please. that's by far the best thing you can do for your fellow Head-fiers.
beside just the crazy idea of doing what is right, don't mistake my laziness/lack of moderator skill, for a go ahead signal to keep on going with the attacks! this post is a warning, it even has red in it! sign of danger in most of the animal kingdom. if things don't fall in line, I'll consider that you've seen this warning and ignored it. which is close to killing john wick's dog, level of provocation.

 

[gregorio]

RE: Modern vs Vintage CDs. Then explain to me why I must LOWER the volume of the modern CD from the volume setting that was comfortable for listening to the vintage one? If they are equally dynamic, then exactly what changed?

Hallelujah brother, now that is how you should have started; by asking questions rather than making false assertions of fact! Unfortunately though, you're not really asking questions, you're just being facetious again because you've made it abundantly clear that you "pay no mind" to the answers to these questions!!

[1] Keith, to be frank, I'm sick of yours, and Gregorio's, and Bigshot's, and everyone else's play on words and mind-games in here.
[2] If my wife tells me it's too fking loud, then it's TOO F'KING LOUD

1. And again, completely backwards, well done! You're the one "paying no mind" to the facts, so you're the one playing mind-games!!

2. You're joking right? Do you really believe that science/the facts are dictated by what your wife tells you, or is it that you believe this is the "What thesonictruth's wife tells him" forum? I stated (and it should be obvious in a science based forum) that if you have a contrary view to the presented reliable evidence/proof then you need to present your own reliable evidence/proof. What your wife tells you does NOT qualify as reliable evidence/proof and the fact that you have presented it, just further demonstrates that you obviously have no idea what science and "reliable evidence/proof" actually means. Clearly you're in the wrong forum!
In this particular case, it's not so much what your wife has told you that is wrong, it's what you've erroneously concluded from it but there's no point in explaining this any further because it would answer your questions above and you'll pay it "no-mind" anyway!

G