#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I can vouch for the GH3 Death Magnetic tracks though. They sound amazing. A fine example of songs that are regularly 7-8 minutes long and keep my attention the whole time (even though much of the music is repeating the same riffs). |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
It's very well-mixed, well-arranged, and well-composed music, so it may not be particularly noticeable, but it is squashed to HELL in terms of dynamic range. It was Mitsuda's first attempt at mixing/mastering himself, though, so I understand that he was new and probably took the advice someone gave him to make it "hot" to get attention. Since then he's mastered any number of releases to a very reasonable level.
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Heh, I thought this was interesting. You had mentioned Advent Children...it actually has an entry in the unofficial DR database. It's not pretty:
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=6131 Not too many other VGM albums, but here's a few: FFVII: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=19325 Chrono Cross: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=10686 (surprisingly bad!) Wild Arms Code F: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=20463 King of Fighters 95: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=6734 (lol, audiophile grade!) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Kirite would be (I scanned this myself): DR10 -0.20 dB -12.76 dB 01 Is Kirite Burning Up_.wav DR11 -1.51 dB -15.37 dB 02 The Market in Volfinor.wav DR10 -0.20 dB -12.43 dB 03 Promise With Winds - Petals' Wher.wav DR9 -1.49 dB -13.19 dB 04 The Forest of Lapis Lazuli.wav DR9 -0.20 dB -11.51 dB 05 The Azure.wav DR10 -1.50 dB -16.01 dB 06 Scorning Blade.wav DR7 -3.57 dB -14.09 dB 07 Upon the Melodies of the Moon.wav DR9 -0.46 dB -13.02 dB 08 Fated Encounter - The Fall of Dar.wav DR11 -1.33 dB -17.46 dB 09 Nocturne.wav DR10 -1.01 dB -13.20 dB 10 As Autumn Passes Away.wav DR11 -0.75 dB -15.16 dB 11 The Snow Howling.wav DR9 -1.37 dB -13.15 dB 12 Prayer Tree.wav DR9 -0.20 dB -11.60 dB 13 The Name of Our Hope.wav DR11 -3.86 dB -18.66 dB 14 Circle of Eternity.wav That 7 sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't it? You might assume that it's because of some massive dynamic range compression or something, but it's actually just because the normal compression applied to the vocals leaves it in that range. There is no brickwalling or hard limiting anywhere on the album, including and especially on that track. The lesson is, you should judge based on what you hear, not some graphic or number. Those things do not compensate for other factors that your ear understands immediately. And for everyone's reference, here is Death Magnetic. Link Last edited by Xenofan 29A; Jul 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Of course Advent Children isn't actually VGM, but who's counting?
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On the other hand, it gave Mighty Obstacle (my prime example of a poorly produced track) a 3 and Mighty Switch Force an album average of 4, so it does seem to be pretty spot on at times. Most early 90's VGM albums, it's giving a healthy 11-14 reading. And it loved those Grandia I tracks. I think that and Falcom Special Box 89 were the ones I got it to register the highest. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Can someone give me a link to the explanation on how exactly the site computes the dynamic range?
I'm only reading this on the main page: Quote:
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
It does not measure dynamics over time, or the difference in volume level between sections. It's primarily a reading of the average difference between the highest and lowest levels at a given point. Any natural sound has several "layers" to it that are at different volumes, so a collection of natural sounds will have a wide range in dB in any given instant. Pretty much any recording has some compression applied, though, to make more of these sounds audible. If too much compression is applied, the sensation of all of the sound being present all at once is unnatural, but it can seem to pop out of the speaker, especially on cheap equipment. A collection of the highest points of a track is collated and the average is taken, giving a general idea of how much "breathing room" the track has in general. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Take a look at both the ReplayGain specs and the newly proposed EBU R 128 one. Both techniques compute gain correction, but the results are different. I don't trust any black box where you put a track in and it magically computes an integer value. If you don't know what is happening inside the output is meaningless. If the site doesn't give any information about the algorithm behind (and I'm talking about formulas / math) then it doesn't provide _any_ credibility. That's like the guy coming up with the PSNR formula implementing it in a black box and then saying: "Hey, here I have something where you put two images in and the machine tells you how much the images deviate from each other. Big number means large deviation, small number little deviation. But I'm not telling you what my box does *nah nah nah*." EDIT: Funny thing Xenofan, because you almost express this yourself here: Quote:
Last edited by LiquidAcid; Jul 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Well, if you've established expectations for the program and it runs as expected for 90-95% of examples, I would say it's doing SOMETHING right.
Every heavy metal album I've analyzed from the past decade performs miserably and the database confirms that. Same for pop albums. Same for crappy remasters of various classic albums. I can't get anything from the past decade to register above an 8 (if a couple of tracks are lucky, that is). Just about every CD I put in from the late 80's/early 90's, on the other hand, registers juicy double digits. My own hearing lead to that conclusion a long time ago, the program isn't telling me anything new. Based on it meeting my expectations in that manner, the program works as expected. I think with VGM (and probably soundtracks in general), there is such a wide variety of production practices, that it is impossible to say it is the perfect way to read everything. We all know Chrono Cross sounds good and I'm not going to back off my praise for the Guilty Gear album based on the rating alone. Anyone who listens to Mighty Obstacle can tell there is something wrong with the music coming through the speakers, slapping a DR Value of 3 on the poor track makes a lot of sense. The exceptions are far fewer than the rules here. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On the other hand, it's not just some magic black box that I think pops out an answer at a whim. I know the general method by which it works, and I explained this above. Honestly, I don't need any more than that personally because I don't use it to make decisions for me. My ears are fine for that. Nor should it be used to pass any sort of definitive judgement on a given recording. It is, on the other hand, useful for comparisons. Unless you believe that its computations are random, then they are valid within their own sphere, and provide a useful point of reference. Certainly a far cry from "guessing stuff out of thin air". Quote:
Last edited by Xenofan 29A; Jul 24, 2012 at 10:51 AM. |
#42
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Remember the thing about why a plane is flying in physics lesson? The stuff about the air traveling with different speeds above and below the airplane wing? Anyone tried to build a real plane just based on this information? Hopefully not, because you will probably kill its passengers instantly. The "explanation" is overly simplified and furthermore incomplete. It might give someone a very coarse idea about how things work, but it's worthless if you actually want to fly / build a plane / evaluate it's flying capabilities. So if this is the kids explanation to airplanes, then your explanation Xenofan is the kids explanation for dynamic range computation. Need to make it more clear? Quote:
2) What kind of average? Linear? Weighted? There are infinitely many ways to compute momentary volume/loudness levels. You just need to take a look at the RG specs about this part: RG1 specs - loudness measurement It's sophisticated, it's complicated and it matters how you do it. You seem to believe that the loudness level is some natural property that just comes along with the audio data. This is simply _not_ the case. And therefore it's of utter importance to know how a tool, which you ultimately want to use to compare different data, computes it. Swap out this part of the scanner and a track with previous result of 12 might now produce 10, while another track changes from 10 to 12. What is "better" now? -------------------- Quote:
And that's what I doubt the most. How do you define a proper metric for comparison if you don't know what these values are anyway. This really reminds me of all this bullshit about radiation in the media when hell was breaking loose in Fukushima. Bombardement with information about radiation in Sievert, Becquerel, Gray and what not. And everybody had their opinion on that matter, even though these units didn't tell them shit (sry for cursing). 10mSv here, 20mSv there -- people just knew "more = bad". It was just numbers for them. But everybody suddenly felt like an expert... It's unscientific in every conceivable way. I'm honestly amazed how you guys can trust something so undocumented (if it really this, maybe I just haven't found the right FAQ yet) like this. And to prevent any misunderstandings: I'm only talking about the technical aspects of the scanner here. The interpretation itself is a totally different matter and as you pointed out numerous times Xenofan, it's best to let the ear decide in the end. And I've got no doubt that you can do this perfectly, probably better than most of the people here. I just doubt you understanding the technical subtleties that come with such a scanner. To quote from the EBU site: Quote:
EDIT: I already spotted some comments on HydrogenAudio that somewhat mirror my whole critique here (Link). Quoting from the thread: Quote:
Another funny thing is that I found a claim about the scanner being open-source, which would pretty much destroy my critique here. But the source itself is nowhere to be found, so I don't really believe that. More funny stuff: The author even mentions EBU R 128 in his ChangeLog, so probably he's aware of the issues with the scanner. Last edited by LiquidAcid; Jul 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
A few comments:
I do not consider myself an expert here, as I have said. I am not a programmer, and there is no way I could begin to code a program, beyond the most insultingly simple. I am not an audio engineer, and although I understand the basic terminology used in the field, I think of music in terms of notes (think sheet music) rather than digital samples. I do not consider this program any sort of be all and end all solution or explanation. I am entirely aware that it does not show THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH of the matter. I am also aware that different programs will get different results. Even a crude slapdash calculation can be useful, like using 3.14 to approximate Pi, which is extremely inaccurate at a scientific level. The only reason I brought it in was to illustrate a point that it was NOT a measurement of how good or bad something is. I don't even think we're really disagreeing here. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Haha ----------------- Anyway, I did a bit more digging and stumbled upon these: Pleasurize Music Foundation @ HA This at least partially reveals how the computation works. The bulk of information (sparse!) comes from the (german) manual: Quote:
So if anything this DR value is going to give you a _very_ crude idea. In fact the effects that you mentioned Xenofan ("bad" DR values but still nicely sounding) might be largely because of this issue (not taking into account the human aural system). Another thread, this time on "JusticeForAudio.org": Link This brought me to this github repo by adiblol, who implemented the algorithm described in the manual: dr_meter@github He claims that the results from this tool are "compatible" with the TT DR Offline Meter (which is also the basis for the DR values in the database). No way I can confirm this though, but at least there is some "reference" code for what this tool is supposedly doing. So what does all this tell us? At least for me it tells me that this DR values should be regarded with great skepticism. Like always, take them with a grain of salt -- preferrably a _big_ grain in this case. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Need to throw the recent Sunsoft remix album on here as well. Sad, since that is the only thing wrong with it, but it's tiring to listen to. Probably would have been a classic if it were released in the early or mid 90's.
Also need to retract Xenoblade...Disc 3 of the soundtrack registered fine and was actually pretty enjoyable to listen to. I think a couple of the tracks on disc 1 were registering high volumes and that threw me off, disc 3 was mostly normal when I went through it (was interested in disc 3, since it seemed to have a majority of the common in-game music and seems to be regarded as the strongest disc by most of the community). |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
I recently moved to r128gain for gain scanning. Even more recently I noticed that it does not only compute gain correction, but also the loudness range of each track. Everything in one pass.
Example: Hanashirube Code:
01 The Door for the beginning of my journey (Ballad Ver.).flac = 7.19 LU 02 Mirai wo Shinjite (Jazz Waltz Ver.).flac = 7.11 LU 03 Time and a Word (Soft Fusion Ver.).flac = 4.96 LU 04 Tiny Tail (Bossa Nova Ver.).flac = 3.10 LU 05 Taisetsu na Kotoba (Latin Fusion Ver.).flac = 6.62 LU 06 Armeria (Jazz Waltz Ver.).flac = 7.71 LU 07 Sirius (Soft Ballad Ver.).flac = 6.50 LU 08 Kunpuu no Shoujo (Spanish Latin Fusion Ver.).flac = 10.17 LU 09 celestial ark ('90s Soft Club Music Ver.).flac = 7.11 LU 10 Cloudy ('80s Pop Soul Ver.).flac = 3.99 LU 11 silent rhyme (Rap Ver.).flac = 2.34 LU 12 Ayumu Michi (Ballad Ver.).flac = 9.76 LU 13 Altair ('70s R&B Ver.).flac = 4.44 LU 14 Hanashirube (Salsa Ver.).flac = 3.28 LU album_range = 6.57 LU |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Are LU the amount of decibels over 89 (or in rare cases, below 89 db)? That is how Wavegain calculates it. I wonder how the two compare.
Usually, I put my files through either Wavegain or mp3gain first, while keeping an eye on the values, then I use the foobar DR scanner separately. If I am getting constant values that are over 95-96 db, usually there is no need to go further with the DR scan. Unless I have a particular interest in the music (the Sunsoft album had Blaster Master and Journey to Silius arranges), experience has told me it's not worth keeping at that point. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
To clarify things. The list above was generated from the track range metadata. It is _not_ displaying the gain correction. And no, the range is not identical with the correction.
Concerning reference level. This is different from the RG 1.0 specs. Here find find either 83 dB SPL (=-20FS dB) or 89 dB SPL (=-14FS dB). See again RG1.0 specs as reference. EBU R128 proposes a ref level of -23FS LU, see this reference. r128gain adds the reference level as metadata. Wavegain implements scanning via RG1.0 specs. Quote:
|
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps nobody has noticed this, but I'd like to point out that while soundtrack CDs have indeed suffered, remixes are also being affected by this "war." If you compare the volume levels of songs posted to Overclocked ReMix in 2000 to songs like PhRey's "We are war" on Game Remixes, you'll notice that the loudness level in remixes is following the trend. Even 24-bit remixes are being compressed into small dynamic ranges, which sort of defeats the purpose of mixing them at 24-bit.
The question with remixes, though, is whether remixers are getting samples that were originally loud, so they can't do anything about the dynamic range. Or, they write out the notes to a song and listen to it in the program, and then find out that it doesn't sound like the original - so they tweak it until they realize that the volume was too low. Since loud music "sounds better" at least at first, I'd wager that it's hard for a remixer to produce a quiet remix of a loud track, at least subconsciously. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
It took some time, but that abomination is reaching games now, with casualities.
https://twitter.com/thatACDCguy/stat...90243389927424 The composer didn't do the mix of the old music in the new game. https://twitter.com/Mick_Gordon/stat...28567882600448 https://www.reddit.com/r/Doom/commen...rned_id_break/ Last edited by Datschge; Apr 21, 2020 at 12:58 AM. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Actually that last one seems to be fake:
https://twitter.com/ThatSkullIsASpy/...95956557889536
__________________
vgmdb - serious business, only.
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Good call, going to edit that.
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Personal Top 200 Vgm List | Spirit_Chaser | Video Game Music Discussion | 18 | Apr 21, 2020 04:52 PM |
Can't add track list | lalaz4 | Questions and Comments | 1 | Oct 2, 2012 03:13 PM |
The Loudness War - a new RPG by Square Enix | Xenofan 29A | Miscellaneous Discussion | 60 | Jun 25, 2010 05:13 PM |
Re: Wish List | Bernhardt | Questions and Comments | 13 | Jan 4, 2010 05:11 AM |
Prioritize the wish list | the_miker | Questions and Comments | 6 | Jul 24, 2009 05:06 AM |