search for: r128gain

...tion, not an external program) it would > be easy to use, just change the cmd line for metaflac in the > script. Now that metaflac supports sample rates higher than > 48kHz this would be a good thing in my view. Of course it > would be nice to have this in flac too. > > As for R128GAIN, I've tried several versions but could not > make it work on any of my Linux distros. > libebur128 requires compiling. Unfortunately I am not a > programmer and I never compile. > > I am aware that there are discussions on how to insert R128 > tags in place of RG tags and m...

...alculation according to specification, not an external program) it would be easy to use, just change the cmd line for metaflac in the script. Now that metaflac supports sample rates higher than 48kHz this would be a good thing in my view. Of course it would be nice to have this in flac too. As for R128GAIN, I've tried several versions but could not make it work on any of my Linux distros. libebur128 requires compiling. Unfortunately I am not a programmer and I never compile. I am aware that there are discussions on how to insert R128 tags in place of RG tags and make it work properly. I have use...

Hi has anyone looked at adding R128gain code to metaflac so we can select to use this calculation for RP tags rather than replay gain? Best regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/attachments/20140615/1c1ca9c9/attachment.htm

Olav Sunde wrote: > has anyone looked at adding R128gain code to metaflac so we can select > to use this calculation for RP tags rather than replay gain? Why metaflac only? flac is also able to calculate RG values. And, as far as I can see R128GAIN (http://r128gain.sourceforge.net/) is a standalone app, not a library. So probably it would be difficu...

Hi has anyone looked at adding R128gain code to metaflac so we can select to use this calculation for RP tags rather than replay gain? If this message turns up twice I apologize. I may have used the wrong subject tag Regards Olav Sunde -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org...

Just a quick question to make sure my understanding is correct on something. R128Gain is part of the opus standard and the information is part of the stream itself, correct? So if I use mkvmerge to take an opus stream from an ogg opus source and stick it into a Matroska audio, I don't have to worry about replaygain or r128gain tags because the opus stream itself will have th...

Ian Nartowicz wrote: > The Opus replaygain spec is fundamentally broken, so let's ignore that for > now. It is discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but isn't going to change any time > soon. I haven't seen anyone make any concrete proposals for how it should change. Maybe I missed something. AFAIK, the only objection to it is that there is no way to distinguish between whether

Ian Nartowicz wrote: > It is certainly the biggest issue. Sure it should be simple to address, but > nobody seems willing to do so. The only response I've had so far is that the > output gain should *always* be applied, yet it *might* be an album gain. It > can't be both and there is no way to tell which. Sorry, but that makes it Well, make a proposal on the IETF list that

Ian Nartowicz wrote: > I use it :) To optionally allow adjustment of tracks containing different > types of gain tag to a similar overall loudness. Admittedly this isn't > common. Files using the original replaygain algorithm with a reference > loudness of 83dB are now very rare, but R128 tags are starting to show up > (eg. in Opus) and these play at a significantly

>b) According to http://wiki.xiph.org/OggOpus#Comment_Header >there should be no REPLAYGAIN_*** tags in Opus files; Opus uses >R128_TRACK_GAIN tag. If some audio player reads Opus tags then it should >be aware of the difference between ReplayGain and R128. But this doesn't >require REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS tag. > > The Opus replaygain spec is fundamentally broken, so

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:39:12 -0700 "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe at xiph.org> wrote: >Ian Nartowicz wrote: >> The Opus replaygain spec is fundamentally broken, so let's ignore that for >> now. It is discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but isn't going to change any >> time soon. > >I haven't seen anyone make any concrete proposals for how it

>The use of R128 also raises the question about "REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS" >tag. Currently flac/metaflac writes "REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS=89.0 dB" >but doesn't use it when decoding (it seems that nothing uses this tag). >R128 defines reference level differently, so this tag makes little sense for >it. IMHO it's better not to write this tag when