Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[donlboy]

I have a mixed playlist of 30 songs from my own music (on my NAS) and from CloudPlay. I use Volume Leveling and Adaptive Volume/Peak Level Normalize. I need to reduce the playback volume of one track to about 15 dB below the level of the other tracks. Is there a way to change the level of an individual track in this scenario?

[JimH]

Try the tag called Volume Level.

[donlboy]

Thanks, that did the job!

[Striker]

Try the tag called Volume Level.

Would that be "VolumeLevel (ReplayGain)" or "VolumeLevel (R128)"

Since MC switched to R128, it sure seems to me like the volume leveling is not as accurate as the old ReplayGain.  I constantly have to adjust volume even with VolumeLeveling enabled, in fact, I repeatedly check to be sure it's even enabled as some track blasts me out compared to the prior track (it is...)

Suggestion:  Allow VolumeLeveling to use either the ReplayGain or the R128 value.  This might tell me my memory is totally wrong... or that I like ReplayGain better.

[Hendrik]

Suggestion:  Allow VolumeLeveling to use either the ReplayGain or the R128 value.  This might tell me my memory is totally wrong... or that I like ReplayGain better.

These values are essentially the same, just with a different reference value. There would be no difference in experience using one over the other that you wouldn't also get by just adjusting the volume once to the new reference level.

[Striker]

These values are essentially the same, just with a different reference value. There would be no difference in experience using one over the other that you wouldn't also get by just adjusting the volume once to the new reference level.

Manually changing the volume level once would work, but it requires manual intervention for every track that sounds way too loud.

Again, maybe my memory is wrong, but I swear ReplyGain did a better job over R128.

Mostly I notice way higher volume on tracks with higher bit rates.

[eve]

Manually changing the volume level once would work, but it requires manual intervention for every track that sounds way too loud.

Again, maybe my memory is wrong, but I swear ReplyGain did a better job over R128.

Mostly I notice way higher volume on tracks with higher bit rates.

Are we talking higher bitrates relative to bitrates of songs with the same sample rate / bitdepth or just higher bitrate in general? If you look at the bitrate of say 2 redbook FLACs, it's not 100% accurate but chances are the higher bitrate one might be louder. A simple piano solo piano piece is going to be lower bitrate than a loud, fully mastered, pop track.

[Striker]

Are we talking higher bitrates relative to bitrates of songs with the same sample rate / bitdepth or just higher bitrate in general? If you look at the bitrate of say 2 redbook FLACs, it's not 100% accurate but chances are the higher bitrate one might be louder. A simple piano solo piano piece is going to be lower bitrate than a loud, fully mastered, pop track.

I'm talking sampling rate in lossless music files.

I notice a consistent louder perceived playback level in higher sampling rate tracks over the standard CD 44.1k tracks.

As one time, I did have a 44.1k and an 96k version of the same track, and the 96k version was noticeably louder than the 44.1k version with Volume Leveling turned on.

Now I can't say if the music dynamic range between those tracks was the same which may affect results.

But the point is... Volume Leveling is better than not using it, but it is far from perfect.  And my memory is ReplayGain worked better, but that was long ago and maybe I didn't have as many high sampling rate tracks back then.

[blgentry]

I'm talking sampling rate in lossless music files.

I notice a consistent louder perceived playback level in higher sampling rate tracks over the standard CD 44.1k tracks.

I've noticed that remastered albums that are on DVD-A and other high resolution sources are usually "remastered" to include higher overall volume.  Also lower dynamic range.  I offer up Fleetwood Mac, Rumors as a basis for comparison.  See the attached screenshot.

Brian.

[Striker]

I've noticed that remastered albums that are on DVD-A and other high resolution sources are usually "remastered" to include higher overall volume.  Also lower dynamic range.  I offer up Fleetwood Mac, Rumors as a basis for comparison.  See the attached screenshot.

Brian.

Thanks for the confirmation... but isn't that what "Volume Leveling" is supposed to handle so basically all albums sound about the same volume?

[blgentry]

Thanks for the confirmation... but isn't that what "Volume Leveling" is supposed to handle so basically all albums sound about the same volume?

The answer isn't yes or no.  It's a little more complicated.

Volume leveling makes the average or "middle" volume of all tracks approximately the same.  So "yes" this is what it does.  But the perceived volume of songs depends on not only the middle volume, but the variations in volume also. 

Take a look at the first track on Rumors in my screen shot.  "Second Hand News" has a dynamic range of 13 on the CD based track.  The DVD-A based track has a DR of 9.   What this means is, there is less variation in volume on the one with a DR of 9.  The song is more saturated with sound.  There is less space in between the music.  It's more dynamically compressed.  This makes it sound louder.  The middle level might be the same for both of these tracks when you play them back to back.   But the DVD-A track (DR =9) will have more total energy.  If you look at the waveform in Audacity or another waveform viewer, you'll see that it is more dense and more "filled in".  So it sounds louder.

I'm not sure if you could compensate for that or not using playback level.  I do know that, generally speaking, less dynamic range means that it sounds worse to me overall.  Not every single time.  It's not a hard and fast rule.  Just generally speaking, more dynamic range is better.  ...and doesn't sound as loud.

Brian.

[Striker]

The answer isn't yes or no.  It's a little more complicated.

Volume leveling makes the average or "middle" volume of all tracks approximately the same.  So "yes" this is what it does.  But the perceived volume of songs depends on not only the middle volume, but the variations in volume also. 

Take a look at the first track on Rumors in my screen shot.  "Second Hand News" has a dynamic range of 13 on the CD based track.  The DVD-A based track has a DR of 9.   What this means is, there is less variation in volume on the one with a DR of 9.  The song is more saturated with sound.  There is less space in between the music.  It's more dynamically compressed.  This makes it sound louder.  The middle level might be the same for both of these tracks when you play them back to back.   But the DVD-A track (DR =9) will have more total energy.  If you look at the waveform in Audacity or another waveform viewer, you'll see that it is more dense and more "filled in".  So it sounds louder.

I'm not sure if you could compensate for that or not using playback level.  I do know that, generally speaking, less dynamic range means that it sounds worse to me overall.  Not every single time.  It's not a hard and fast rule.  Just generally speaking, more dynamic range is better.  ...and doesn't sound as loud.

Brian.

Thanks, I understand and don't like the loudness wars.  I remember looking at  a Pat Benatar (remaster) album waveforms and comparing it to the original release.  The new and improved remastered album sounded horrible due to the almost total lack of dynamic range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBU_R_128

This site says:

Adoption and aftermath

The recommendation encourages the use of a wider dynamic range in production but does not restrict the use of dynamic range compression. In essence, it ties the use of compression to artistic and aesthetic decisions, rather than the necessity of obtaining a louder mix.[5] With the adoption of normalisation by broadcasters since the introduction of EBU R 128, reducing dynamic range in production does not render the program louder in broadcast.[12] Widespread adoption of ITU-R BS.1770 and EBU R 128, combined with the prevailing of streaming over physical media distribution in the 2010s, arguably put an end to the loudness war.[9]

________________________

And reading some technical articles on R128 implies it should handle differing dynamic ranges...

MediaCenter is my only use of R128 volume leveling, but I can tell you, it barely works and I sometimes go into options to check I actually have it turned on.

So either R128 barely works, or the MC implementation is not correct.

[blgentry]

Striker:  What is your playback device?  Is it a network based renderer of some sort?  If so, volume leveling will not work with it until you turn it on in a different part of MC than the normal DSP Studio.

Brian.

[Striker]

Striker:  What is your playback device?  Is it a network based renderer of some sort?  If so, volume leveling will not work with it until you turn it on in a different part of MC than the normal DSP Studio.

Brian.

I use the digital coax output from my sound card to my B&K audio processor.  No networking involved. 

I read lots of the original R128 announcement from 2013 or 2014...  I remember it now... there were more than one saying R128 did not work well.

[JimH]

I use the digital coax output from my sound card to my B&K audio processor.  No networking involved. 

I read lots of the original R128 announcement from 2013 or 2014...  I remember it now... there were more than one saying R128 did not work well.

I don't recall any problems when we made the switch, but any change we make can elicit a few complaints.