More > JRiver Media Center 19 for Windows
NEW: Improved audio analysis and volume leveling (R128)
6233638:
--- Quote from: mojave on August 19, 2013, 03:59:27 pm ---Do you have very many real world examples in your library where the Peak Level (R128) doesn't have enough headroom to adjust for Volume Level (R128)? In my library of 6400 audio tracks I found just three and it only made a 1.6 dB or less difference. I also would never play back those tracks without the entire album so it wouldn't matter anyway. The one needing the most Volume Level (R128) measures 15.8 and it has a Peak Level (R128) of -15.1 dBTP. The actual adjustment is 14.1 dB.
--- End quote ---
As I mentioned before, only 1% of the music I have analyzed so far (151/~16,000) requires more headroom than -23 LUFS provides; and most of those tracks are classical music, which would generally be played back as albums anyway. I think -23 LUFS is a very good target level for music.
Vocalpoint suggested that the target be raised to -15 LUFS though - only 38% of my library would be able to be properly normalized using that as a target level.
I think if people are finding that playback is too quiet when using Volume Leveling, the solution is to use it in conjunction with Adaptive Volume set to Peak Level Normalize, rather than raise the target level. This will ensure the current playlist is level, but plays it as loud as possible while avoiding clipping.
For videos, however, more than 50% of my library requires more headroom than -23 LUFS provides. The worst offender is a film which requires 11.9dB of additional headroom.
Overall, it seems that -30 LUFS would be a suitable target for most films though. I'm not suggesting that the default be changed, but I would like some way of adjusting it. (and using Internal Volume seems like the neatest solution)
But that doesn't tell the whole story - when you downmix to stereo, the peak and average levels can change quite a bit. Some files require additional headroom, and others don't need nearly as much.
Matt has tried a few ways of estimating it, but perceptually, I don't think it works very well for films. It seems to do a better job with music, mostly being ±3dB with the files I have tested so far.
I think the only real solution is to have an option that will also analyze the downmix. There are reasons why it's not a good idea to do this, but I can't come up with a better solution.
But it could also be argued that volume leveling is not as much of a concern for film playback, because they're going to be at least 90 minutes long, and it's not as common to be playing them back-to-back.
It's mostly a problem for videos that have been created for the web (YouTube etc.) which are stereo, but simply need more headroom.
mwillems:
--- Quote from: mojave on August 19, 2013, 03:59:27 pm ---Do you have very many real world examples in your library where the Peak Level (R128) doesn't have enough headroom to adjust for Volume Level (R128)? In my library of 6400 audio tracks I found just three and it only made a 1.6 dB or less difference. I also would never play back those tracks without the entire album so it wouldn't matter anyway. The one needing the most Volume Level (R128) measures 15.8 and it has a Peak Level (R128) of -15.1 dBTP. The actual adjustment is 14.1 dB.
Only 200 tracks of mine need a positive volume adjustment (.03%). Out of those 200, there are only 4 tracks that I would play in a mixed playlist.
--- End quote ---
For me, about 1500 out of 56000 tracks require a positive adjustment, and about 1/2 of those (a little less than 800) require a positive adjustment greater than the peak level will accommodate, so this affects a little less than 2% of tracks for me. The majority of those (about 2/3) are classical music, so probably not playlist fodder, but a substantial number of the remainder might wind up in playlists.
It's a small issue (for me), and I'm sure there are some unintended consequences I'm not seeing. But if it were frictionless, it seems like it would be preferable to process internal volume first or in composition with volume leveling so leveling would work for those tracks too.
mantis07:
how do I go about displaying the DR value of an analyzed song?
thanks
Vocalpoint:
--- Quote from: 6233638 on August 19, 2013, 04:23:02 pm ---Vocalpoint suggested that the target be raised to -15 LUFS though - only 38% of my library would be able to be properly normalized using that as a target level.
--- End quote ---
I have since found out that ReplayGain is essentially = -18LUFS. And I finally found the document that I was thinking about in relation to my -15 LUFS suggestion...and it's here...
http://techblog.studio-compyfox.de/media/tech-doc/tech001_2012-Q2_K-System_v2.pdf
This document combines the best attributes of R128 with the Bob Katz "K System" and proposes a different target LUFS with the respect to music production. I feel this -16 LUFS standard is more in line with what one would have been experiencing with ReplayGain and it addresses the sharply quieter playback that the standard -23 LUFS target gives. That standard target was created to address the needs of ongoing broadcast material (voices, spots, music etc) in TV/radio and to me - simply is too aggressive a target to apply to my own library from home use.
I will be able to speak to this much better of course when I install v19 - but we are not ready for that just yet.. :)
I hope you will give the doc a read and let me know what you think.
Cheers!
VP
mwillems:
--- Quote from: Vocalpoint on August 20, 2013, 08:19:30 am ---I have since found out that ReplayGain is essentially = -18LUFS. And I finally found the document that I was thinking about in relation to my -15 LUFS suggestion...and it's here...
http://techblog.studio-compyfox.de/media/tech-doc/tech001_2012-Q2_K-System_v2.pdf
This document combines the best attributes of R128 with the Bob Katz "K System" and proposes a different target LUFS with the respect to music production. I feel this -16 LUFS standard is more in line with what one would have been experiencing with ReplayGain and it addresses the sharply quieter playback that the standard -23 LUFS target gives. That standard target was created to address the needs of ongoing broadcast material (voices, spots, music etc) in TV/radio and to me - simply is too aggressive a target to apply to my own library from home use.
I will be able to speak to this much better of course when I install v19 - but we are not ready for that just yet.. :)
I hope you will give the doc a read and let me know what you think.
Cheers!
VP
--- End quote ---
I seem to recall that JRiver's implementation of the ReplayGain standard was about 6 dB different than the actual standard (but tagged in a way that allowed compatibility with players using the normal standard). The specification for the official ReplayGain standard target is -14 LUFS (89dB calibration) http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ReplayGain_specification#Clipping_prevention, and JRiver's implementation was -20 LUFS (83 dB calibration) to bring it in line with film mastering/movie theater calibration.
So the new volume leveling target will be about 3 dB quieter than the old volume leveling target (bracketing out other differences in the way the standards work that might affect how successfully they're hitting the target). Subjectively, for what it's worth, the new volume leveling doesn't sound much quieter to me than the old volume leveling, just much more consistent in it's effects.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version