Print

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

[MrC]

Is there anyway you could get the nightmode to come on and go off automatically at set times?? Or setup a keyboard shortcut?

You might be able to use time-based zone switching.  I've described it here:

   http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=76605.msg519030#msg519030

[sKiZo]

It looks like these files were analyzed by a previous version of Media Center - you need to re-analyze files in MC19 for volume leveling and adaptive volume to work correctly. Older versions of Media Center did not perform true peak level analysis. (Peak Level R128)

So, what I'm hearing is that the volume leveling is improved in MC19?

One of my favorite pet peeves with MC was that volume leveling never really worked for me. Some albums low, some blasting, all analyzed. Was hoping that at some time you'd allow manual editing of the replay gain and other options in the ANALYZE AUDIO table. Right now, only options seem to be what the automatic process sets, or "0" (and not even that on some settings). Seems as if that would be a simple switch in whatever database software you're using in the back end. That would allow me to reset an album or track to match the average levels for my tracks that apparently the automatic process can't deal with.

I've been using MC since v16, so would re-analyzing the library maybe make any difference? If not, would upgrading to MC19, AND enabling both volume leveling and adaptive volume leveling AND re-analyzing the library fix these inconsistencies?

(Still be nice to be able to have a manual option when all else fails)

[6233638]

So, what I'm hearing is that the volume leveling is improved in MC19?

Volume Leveling has been considerably improved in MC19 - though you may still have audible differences between albums right now.
Currently it uses the gain from the loudest track on an album rather than the average, which can still result in uneven playback.
This is not a problem when you are playing mixed/random playlists though - those take full advantage of the new leveling system.
 

I've been using MC since v16, so would re-analyzing the library maybe make any difference?

You need to re-analyze your files to take use the new volume leveling system, otherwise it still uses the old ReplayGain v1 method rather than the new R128 method.

If not, would upgrading to MC19, AND enabling both volume leveling and adaptive volume leveling AND re-analyzing the library fix these inconsistencies?

Adaptive Volume creates volume inconsistencies.
 
If you have the two enabled, playback in the current playlist ("Now Playing" view) is leveled, and then adaptive volume makes that list of tracks as loud as possible without clipping.
This means that your current playlist should have an even volume, but different playlists may play back at different volume levels.
 
If you enable Volume Leveling on its own, the volume should be level regardless of what you are playing. (as level as is possible, anyway) Everything is normalized to a target of -23 LUFS.
 
 
Hopefully the JRiver team will get around to fixing the album leveling soon.
It was fine until 19.0.14, if I recall correctly, and then the change was made from using the average gain to the loudest track to fix a problem with video playback when volume leveling was enabled.
The way that volume leveling applies to videos has changed since then, so that fix should no longer be necessary, but it's still in place and is holding back the performance of the volume leveling.
Even so, it should still be a lot better than the old ReplayGain method.

[sKiZo]

I don't do playlists as a rule - I do albums, and if a track suggests something else, manually pick 'n click to fire that up ... repeat as necessary.

Way I read it, adaptive leveling isn't what I'm looking for, but volume leveling <may> improve the situation here due to the improved processing. Ultimate goal would be to be able to just let the volume control gather dust ...

OK then ... let me munch on that for a bit ...

PS ... the latest STABLE version contain all this goodness?

[6233638]

Way I read it, adaptive leveling isn't what I'm looking for, but volume leveling <may> improve the situation here due to the improved processing. Ultimate goal would be to be able to just let the volume control gather dust ...

Adaptive Volume is generally for people that want the loudest playback they can get.
In MC19 it can be combined with Volume Leveling to give you the loudest volume for the current playlist, while leveling it, but if your goal is to never touch the volume control, you should leave Adaptive Volume disabled.
 
If you just want an even volume and to never have to touch the volume control, that's what Volume Leveling on its own will do.
 
 
You may still have to adjust your volume control a little until we get a fix for the way that albums are leveled though.
It seems like a really small change, so I'm not sure why it hasn't been fixed yet.
 

PS ... the latest STABLE version contain all this goodness?

Yep.

[sKiZo]

Yeah ... seems like you could set a universal reference level for playback and have the volume leveling do what it has to do to match that ... maybe a test track or two. Set those to match your preferences and tell MC ... that's it! NOW do your thing ...

[6233638]

Yeah ... seems like you could set a universal reference level for playback and have the volume leveling do what it has to do to match that ... maybe a test track or two. Set those to match your preferences and tell MC ... that's it! NOW do your thing ...

Volume Leveling does this with a target of -23 LUFS (dB) as the R128 specification requires.
 
I do think it would be beneficial for the target to shift as you reduce volume though, to provide additional headroom for volume leveling with particularly dynamic tracks.
 
99% of my music library fits with this 23dB range though - it's video playback where leveling can run out of headroom. (which means that some videos are not completely level)

[sKiZo]

Point of order ... should adaptive volume be turned on PRIOR to re-analysis?

I did the upgrade and re-analyze thing last night. Around three hours for 5000 flacs, which seems reasonable. First impression was that everything was much quieter. Huh?

Second impression ... TURN IT DOWN before clicking the adaptive volume on. Crap! Lucky I didn't throw cones when it kicked in. Once I got past that (and cleaned the stains off the chair) the volume going album to album is a lot closer than it was. I went through several selections that I know would have required tweaking in the past, with good results and no reaching for the controls. As with anything new, I expect it will take a bit of getting used to, but it feels like progress.

I suppose one thing I'd add to my wish list is the ability to change that -23db target to match my system and library. That would avoid the "what happens if I click this OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! issue when turning on adaptive volume ... NO option should have the potential for damage that one currently has, at least here. There too, a test track or two selected and based on average sampling and results might be handy.
 

[6233638]

Point of order ... should adaptive volume be turned on PRIOR to re-analysis?

It won't affect analysis at all, it's only applied during playback.

First impression was that everything was much quieter. Huh?

R128 has a lower target volume than ReplayGain - it's required in order to give it enough headroom to adequately level highly dynamic tracks.

I suppose one thing I'd add to my wish list is the ability to change that -23db target to match my system and library. That would avoid the "what happens if I click this OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! issue when turning on adaptive volume

If your goal is to never touch the volume control, do not use adaptive volume.
The whole point of adaptive volume is to play at the maximum loudness possible without clipping.
 
-23dB was chosen for the R128 specification (it is an international standard - not something JRiver has developed themselves) specifically because it allows just about any music to be adequately leveled. If you increase the target loudness from that, you are very likely to run into problems where it starts to sound uneven again.
 
The only change I would like to see regarding the target level, is to have it change with the volume control.
So -6dB on the volume control would actually change the target to -29dB, giving you an extra 6dB of headroom.
Leveling is currently applied before the volume control, so if you run out of headroom, there's nothing that can be done about it.

[sKiZo]

Did some goooogling, and R128 is a video standard - IMHO ... R128 is WAY too conservative for audio playback for pure listening.

Just played a couple of my favorite "wall of sound" tracks. Wedding Nails by Porcupine Tree and the grand finale of Kapp's Symphony #2. With volume leveling enabled and adaptive volume disabled, I was only seeing peak levels in at around 20% in the equalizer panel ... that's kinda sorta ridiculous, right? What kind of dynamic range we going for here? Even with the preamp level of the equalizer jacked all the way up to 12db, I was seeing 75% peaks at most, which seems a sad waste of potential. I'd prefer to see the clip protection take care of the once in a blue moon excursions that exceed a more agressive setting. Lucky me, I'm tube here, so even without that, I'd be seeing soft clips at worst. Once again, the "cure" might be to just have a master override setting for the -23db base point that R128 uses. Also be good if you could apply a different master compensation setting to video and dedicated audio tracks.

Maybe related - I'm also hearing some audible pumping that wasn't there before. Not sure what to make of that. Possibly I'd need to turn down my trusty old dbx 3BX - stands to reason feeding that a wider dynamic range would require compensation. The visual display doesn't look any different than what I'm used to seeing though.

One thing I'm already missing is the compensation settings in volume leveling that allowed you to boost or cut the overall results for albums or tracks. That could do the trick. See my comment above about a master override setting. Also be nice to be able to select which type of leveling you want to use - the original with all it's baggage, or this one with a new set of baggage.

So maybe it's just me, but it looks like at this point, if I were to decide the old system worked better for me, my only option to go back would be to downgrade back to version 18? Probably sooner the better so I don't stumble across any killer new features in v19 I just can't live without. <G>

[6233638]

Did some goooogling, and R128 is a video standard - IMHO ... R128 is WAY too conservative for audio playback for pure listening.

R128 is a broadcast standard, not a video standard. Radio stations in Europe are already implementing it.
Video frequently requires more than 23dB of headroom in my experience - I'd like to increase it to something around 32dB.
 

Just played a couple of my favorite "wall of sound" tracks. Wedding Nails by Porcupine Tree and the grand finale of Kapp's Symphony #2. With volume leveling enabled and adaptive volume disabled, I was only seeing peak levels in at around 20% in the equalizer panel ... that's kinda sorta ridiculous, right?

This depends entirely on the dynamic range of your audio. Highly dynamic tracks may even exceed the amount of headroom that R128 provides, but that's about 1% of my library.
 
If you add an expression column and use this code, it will tell you how much headroom is required for your tracks:
 

Code: ( Headroom ) [Select]

Delimit(if(isempty([Peak Level (R128)]),,formatnumber(math(removecharacters(left([Peak Level (R128)],5),/ /+,0)+RemoveCharacters([Volume Level (R128)],/ LU,0)+1),1)),/ dB,)
As you approach 0 dB you are reaching the limits of what 23dB headroom allows, and you may even find tracks which exceed it.
It may also be useful to add the Dynamic Range (DR) column as well, as that gives you a rough quality analysis of your library. (higher is better, and well mastered tracks are typically above 10)
 

I'd prefer to see the clip protection take care of the once in a blue moon excursions that exceed a more agressive setting.

R128 should never clip - if it runs out of headroom you simply have a track which does not level correctly. (plays back quieter than the rest)

Maybe related - I'm also hearing some audible pumping that wasn't there before.

Adaptive Volume will do this if it's in anything but the Peak Level mode, or if it's being used with tracks which have not been analyzed.

One thing I'm already missing is the compensation settings in volume leveling that allowed you to boost or cut the overall results for albums or tracks. That could do the trick. Also be nice to be able to select which type of leveling you want to use - the original with all it's baggage, or this one with a new set of baggage.

Volume Leveling should not require these controls.

[sKiZo]

Appreciate your patience here ...

So, with volume leveling on and adaptive off, with the equalizer set for +6db and otherwise flat, and checking the same files I referenced earlier ...

(the envelope please)

Wedding Nails (CD redbook rip to FLAC)
- Dynamic Range (R128)= 16.0 LU
- Dynamic Range (DR) = 7
- Your expression = -11.5dB

Kapp's Second ... (CD redbook rip to FLAC)
- Dynamic Range (R128)= 13.6 LU
- Dynamic Range (DR) = 10
- Your expression = -9.4 dB

I checked out a higher res file (24bit) from Buckingham & Nicks.

Crying In The Night (download FLAC)
- Dynamic Range (R128)= 3.9 LU
- Dynamic Range (DR) = 13
- Your expression = -7.6 dB

Not sure what all the numbers mean, but there's some obvious differences with the higher bit rate. Problem being, my library is all Redbook or album rips to Redbook with very few exceptions.

Volume Leveling should not require these controls.

And ya ... I agree, volume leveling SHOULD not require these controls, but hey ... just sayin'. After the R128 analysis, I ended up having to turn the amp up a couple notches, the DAC all the way, and the MC equalizer up +7 (otherwise flat) to get me back where I was for overall volume levels. I'd hate to think of what would happen to my speakers if someone were to inadvertently click adaptive leveling on ... it wouldn't be pretty. Probably scare the heck out of an astronaut on ISS who happened to be looking out the cupola when my cones when whizzing by ...

[6233638]

I ended up having to turn the amp up a couple notches, the DAC all the way, and the MC equalizer up +7 (otherwise flat) to get me back where I was for overall volume levels.

It is supposed to be a lot quieter than ReplayGain. One of the main reasons ReplayGain did not sound even, is because it did not provide enough headroom to adequately level all tracks.
 
If you're turning up the equalizer, you're going to cause playback to be uneven again. Turn up your amp.

Not sure what all the numbers mean, but there's some obvious differences with the higher bit rate. Problem being, my library is all Redbook or album rips to Redbook with very few exceptions.

It means that higher quality tracks need more headroom than low quality compressed releases. Sort your library by "Headroom" and see if you have anything approaching 0 dB.
Ideally you will have some tracks which are within a decibel or two of 0 dB, but none which exceed it.

[jmone]

In testing my new DAC I've noticed issues (digital noise) but just on some songs and I'm wondering if it is a combination of the downmixing of 6ch --> 2 ch content + the application of "Adaptive Volume" as it seems to only be this combination with the issue.  Here is a screen shot that seems to show really bosted Peak Levels.  I normally have it set to "Clip Protection" but changed it to "Flat line overflows" to see how much it overflows and on some of these tracks it hits 150%.  That said, the digital noise is most noticeable in the quieter parts of the track where it is not overflowing.

Also happy for any suggestions, but turning off Adaptive Volume seems the go for now.

[mwillems]

In testing my new DAC I've noticed issues (digital noise) but just on some songs and I'm wondering if it is a combination of the downmixing of 6ch --> 2 ch content + the application of "Adaptive Volume" as it seems to only be this combination with the issue.  Here is a screen shot that seems to show really bosted Peak Levels.  I normally have it set to "Clip Protection" but changed it to "Flat line overflows" to see how much it overflows and on some of these tracks it hits 150%.  That said, the digital noise is most noticeable in the quieter parts of the track where it is not overflowing.

Also happy for any suggestions, but turning off Adaptive Volume seems the go for now.

One quick trouble shooting question: if you turn off both adaptive volume and volume levelling, does it show the same problem?  I ask because the track you have highlighted has a clipping peak (i.e. +1dB).  A +3dB overage would cause a 200% over, so a 1dB overage could conceivably cause a 20 to 40% overage at some points just from normal playback. 

If there's no problem with both disabled, then it sounds like adaptive volume may not be interacting correctly with downmixing in this case.

[jmone]

Thanks - I need to play with this some more to work out exactly what I'm hearing on only a few of these 6ch tracks.  Just wanted to check I had not missed something obvious with the DSP settings.

[jmone]

Got WASAPI Exclusive + Event Style Working which seems to have fixed the issue (but time will tell).  More here

[labresque]

What are the steps to get to the above screen to make changes to Adaptive Volume?

[JimH]

Please see the first post in this thread.