[Mike Duffy]

Greetings, all.

I have a bunch of MP3 files I put on my phone (to play while in the car via
bluetooth.)

The problem is, they came from different sources, and some are louder than
others, and it's a PITA to keep changing the volume.

I found a neat set of GNU command line audio utilities (SOX). I wrote a
messy CMD command file to extract the RMS average decibel level of each
song, then used the formula:

10 ^ ((-20 - %RMSLEVEL%) / 20) (I wrote a 'quick&dirty' c++ for this.)

to get the volume (amplitude) multiplier for each song to bring it to -20,
which is pretty close to the aggregate average of the entire collection.
Then I ran an overnight script to adjust the volume of each MP3 file as
calculated above.

Then, just for fun, I re-ran the original script that calculates the RMS db
levels. I expected each song to be exactly -20. They are all pretty close
(around -20.5 db), so the volumes are close enough that I've solved my
problem. But I am curious. why are they not exactly at -20 db average?

There was some clipping for the songs that needed their volume increased.
Probably these were just scratches on the original vinyl. But even the ones
where volumes were lowered did not go exactly to -20.

Am I experiencing a compression-related syndrome? There are tools that let
you monkey with this as well, but I probably won't mess with that. I'm just
curious.

[geoff]

On 09/02/2016 17:34, Mike Duffy wrote:
Greetings, all.

I have a bunch of MP3 files I put on my phone (to play while in the car via
bluetooth.)

The problem is, they came from different sources, and some are louder than
others, and it's a PITA to keep changing the volume.

I found a neat set of GNU command line audio utilities (SOX). I wrote a
messy CMD command file to extract the RMS average decibel level of each
song, then used the formula:

10 ^ ((-20 - %RMSLEVEL%) / 20) (I wrote a 'quick&dirty' c++ for this.)

to get the volume (amplitude) multiplier for each song to bring it to -20,
which is pretty close to the aggregate average of the entire collection.
Then I ran an overnight script to adjust the volume of each MP3 file as
calculated above.

Then, just for fun, I re-ran the original script that calculates the RMS db
levels. I expected each song to be exactly -20. They are all pretty close
(around -20.5 db), so the volumes are close enough that I've solved my
problem. But I am curious. why are they not exactly at -20 db average?

There was some clipping for the songs that needed their volume increased.
Probably these were just scratches on the original vinyl. But even the ones
where volumes were lowered did not go exactly to -20.

Am I experiencing a compression-related syndrome? There are tools that let
you monkey with this as well, but I probably won't mess with that. I'm just
curious.



Hitting everything with the same sledgehammer clearly doesn't work.

And any level adjustment with require a re-encoding, which should make
crappy MP3s even more crappy. Possibly to be re-crappified again by
Bluetooth (not sure on that one) !

Is *all* the music of a similar dynamic 'nature' to start off with ? If
so, all well and good. If not, then each track (or bunch of similar
tracks) needs to be addressed separately.

geoff

[Gareth Magennis]

"Geoff" wrote in message
...

On 09/02/2016 17:34, Mike Duffy wrote:
Greetings, all.

I have a bunch of MP3 files I put on my phone (to play while in the car
via
bluetooth.)

The problem is, they came from different sources, and some are louder than
others, and it's a PITA to keep changing the volume.

I found a neat set of GNU command line audio utilities (SOX). I wrote a
messy CMD command file to extract the RMS average decibel level of each
song, then used the formula:

10 ^ ((-20 - %RMSLEVEL%) / 20) (I wrote a 'quick&dirty' c++ for this.)

to get the volume (amplitude) multiplier for each song to bring it to -20,
which is pretty close to the aggregate average of the entire collection.
Then I ran an overnight script to adjust the volume of each MP3 file as
calculated above.

Then, just for fun, I re-ran the original script that calculates the RMS
db
levels. I expected each song to be exactly -20. They are all pretty close
(around -20.5 db), so the volumes are close enough that I've solved my
problem. But I am curious. why are they not exactly at -20 db average?

There was some clipping for the songs that needed their volume increased.
Probably these were just scratches on the original vinyl. But even the
ones
where volumes were lowered did not go exactly to -20.

Am I experiencing a compression-related syndrome? There are tools that let
you monkey with this as well, but I probably won't mess with that. I'm
just
curious.



Hitting everything with the same sledgehammer clearly doesn't work.

And any level adjustment with require a re-encoding, which should make
crappy MP3s even more crappy. Possibly to be re-crappified again by
Bluetooth (not sure on that one) !

Is *all* the music of a similar dynamic 'nature' to start off with ? If
so, all well and good. If not, then each track (or bunch of similar
tracks) needs to be addressed separately.

geoff







There is software that will allow simple mp3 editing, without re-encoding to
yet another mp3 and losing even more data.
I use this freeware/donation, I assume there must be others out there.

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html


Gareth.

[Trevor]

On 9/02/2016 7:24 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
There is software that will allow simple mp3 editing, without
re-encoding to yet another mp3 and losing even more data.
I use this freeware/donation, I assume there must be others out there.

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html

Yep, mp3gain and mp3 direct cut for starters.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 9/02/2016 7:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 9/02/2016 7:24 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
There is software that will allow simple mp3 editing, without
re-encoding to yet another mp3 and losing even more data.
I use this freeware/donation, I assume there must be others out there.

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html

Yep, mp3gain and mp3 direct cut for starters.


Whoops, I should have checked that URL, you already (sort of) said MP3
direct cut!

Trevor.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

On 9/02/2016 7:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 9/02/2016 7:24 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
There is software that will allow simple mp3 editing, without
re-encoding to yet another mp3 and losing even more data.
I use this freeware/donation, I assume there must be others out there.

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html

Yep, mp3gain and mp3 direct cut for starters.


Whoops, I should have checked that URL, you already (sort of) said MP3
direct cut!

Trevor.






Just checked mp3again, and that appears to be able to do pretty much what
the OP wants.


Gareth.

[geoff]

On 09/02/2016 21:38, Trevor wrote:
On 9/02/2016 7:24 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
There is software that will allow simple mp3 editing, without
re-encoding to yet another mp3 and losing even more data.
I use this freeware/donation, I assume there must be others out there.

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html

Yep, mp3gain and mp3 direct cut for starters.

Trevor.



mp3dc trimming and cutting sections of the song, sure. And changing
amplitude mp3gain in a linear fashion maybe.

But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
mp3dc trimming and cutting sections of the song, sure. And changing
amplitude mp3gain in a linear fashion maybe.

But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

geoff "


NO. And stop speculating and spreading
false information - even if it did not originate
from you. This is why, 12 years ago, so
many good folks were led to believe Saddam
Hussein bankrolled and carried out 9/11 for
cryin out loud!

Original poster:
I use mp3gain, and it does NOT futz
with the dynamic range of my mp3s.
It is simply a VOLUME LEVELER.
NOTHING MORE.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 6:38:59 AM UTC-5, wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
mp3dc trimming and cutting sections of the song, sure. And changing
amplitude mp3gain in a linear fashion maybe.

But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

geoff "


NO. And stop speculating and spreading
false information - even if it did not originate
from you. This is why, 12 years ago, so
many good folks were led to believe Saddam
Hussein bankrolled and carried out 9/11 for
cryin out loud!

Original poster:
I use mp3gain, and it does NOT futz
with the dynamic range of my mp3s.
It is simply a VOLUME LEVELER.
NOTHING MORE.

there is also META data in MP3s that is not even part of the actual audio data that some players will read and use to set the playback level. I think it is one number per song so it does not impact the dynamics within a song, only the overall playback level of each song.

anybody know an easy way to edit that metadata manually. I wouldn't mind changing the playback level on a few MP3s by hand.

M

[Scott Dorsey]

Geoff wrote:
But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

mp3gain doesn't compress dynamics, it alters the overall level at which the
track is played back. Just like Dolby AC3 files with their DIALNORM
parameter, the mp3 file has a parameter that sets the playback level. You
can set it higher or lower and change the volume without changing anything
in the encoding.

Mind you, if you play with it too much, you can find that encoding artifacts
get exaggerated. But that's just the nature of the beast.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Duffy]

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 08:59:06 -0000, Gareth Magennis wrote:

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html

... mp3again, ... appears ... to do pretty much what the OP wants.

Thanks Trevor & Gareth. I will look into that.

[Mike Duffy]

On 9 Feb 2016 09:38:05 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Mind you, if you play with it too much, you can find that encoding artifacts
get exaggerated. But that's just the nature of the beast.

Like old vacuum tube analogue electric guitar amps. Maybe I'll start a
trend and become famous.

Seriously, thanks for your input. I sort of understand the theory behind
level compression, enough at least to explain to my wife why we can't stop
the TV stations from raising the sound volume of TV advertisements. Enough
to 'stay away' unless absolutely needed.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Duffy wrote:
On 9 Feb 2016 09:38:05 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Mind you, if you play with it too much, you can find that encoding artifacts
get exaggerated. But that's just the nature of the beast.

Like old vacuum tube analogue electric guitar amps. Maybe I'll start a
trend and become famous.

Seriously, thanks for your input. I sort of understand the theory behind
level compression, enough at least to explain to my wife why we can't stop
the TV stations from raising the sound volume of TV advertisements. Enough
to 'stay away' unless absolutely needed.

But compression can be the _solution_ for those problems, too. Add an AGC
box to your television sets and the commercials won't blast you out so badly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Duffy]

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:58:56 +1300, Geoff wrote:

And any level adjustment with require a re-encoding, which should make
crappy MP3s even more crappy. Possibly to be re-crappified again by
Bluetooth (not sure on that one) !

Thanks, Geoff. This confirms my limited understanding of 'level
compression'. And yes, bluetooth is crappy, and most of the MP3s were
digitized from the cheap (free?) motherboard audio chip on my PC and about
half from cassette tapes and a 'boom box' that had not seen action for 25
years. But it's for the car. Cassette hiss is virtually indistinguishable
from road noise, at least to my ears.

[Mike Duffy]

On 9 Feb 2016 10:09:55 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

But compression can be the _solution_ for those problems, too. Add an AGC
box to your television sets and the commercials won't blast you out so badly.
--scott

I can't see an easy way to do that if I'm using the TV speakers and the TV
gets its signal via HDMI from the cable descrambler. You're probably one of
those people who has a sound system for his sound. Are there OTS HDMI AGC
boxes for this? They are probably expensive. Just getting an extra HDMI
cable to hook it in is already expensive. Thanks anyway, Scott.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Mike Duffy wrote:
On 9 Feb 2016 10:09:55 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

But compression can be the _solution_ for those problems, too. Add an AGC
box to your television sets and the commercials won't blast you out so badly.

I can't see an easy way to do that if I'm using the TV speakers and the TV
gets its signal via HDMI from the cable descrambler. You're probably one of
those people who has a sound system for his sound. Are there OTS HDMI AGC
boxes for this? They are probably expensive. Just getting an extra HDMI
cable to hook it in is already expensive. Thanks anyway, Scott.

I have no idea, I don't even own a TV set. But there are off the shelf
boxes with analogue inputs and outputs, and there is stuff built into the
Dolby AC-3 standard so that some TV sets and receivers have a "night mode"
which reduces all dynamic range.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:34:06 PM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote:
Greetings, all.

I have a bunch of MP3 files I put on my phone (to play while in the car via
bluetooth.)

The problem is, they came from different sources, and some are louder than
others, and it's a PITA to keep changing the volume.

Ha!! Welcome to the gurus of CD mastering!!! I had to find out the underlying problem, no one here knew! Yeah, Pro they claim!...

Forget compression and all that amateur stuff. Get a copy of Goldwave. FIRST, remove VARYING DC offset, very simple. Then, under Edit menu, select the song and give it a Light Dynamic boost! Very simple. From there it's your choice.


I found a neat set of GNU command line audio utilities (SOX). I wrote a
messy CMD command file to extract the RMS average decibel level of each
song, then used the formula:

10 ^ ((-20 - %RMSLEVEL%) / 20) (I wrote a 'quick&dirty' c++ for this.)

to get the volume (amplitude) multiplier for each song to bring it to -20,
which is pretty close to the aggregate average of the entire collection.
Then I ran an overnight script to adjust the volume of each MP3 file as
calculated above.

Then, just for fun, I re-ran the original script that calculates the RMS db
levels. I expected each song to be exactly -20. They are all pretty close
(around -20.5 db), so the volumes are close enough that I've solved my
problem. But I am curious. why are they not exactly at -20 db average?

There was some clipping for the songs that needed their volume increased.
Probably these were just scratches on the original vinyl. But even the ones
where volumes were lowered did not go exactly to -20.

Am I experiencing a compression-related syndrome? There are tools that let
you monkey with this as well, but I probably won't mess with that. I'm just
curious.

Some songs need to be compressed, if not, they sound as good as dead fish compared to vinyl records!!

Jack

[geoff]

On 10/02/2016 00:38, wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
mp3dc trimming and cutting sections of the song, sure. And changing
amplitude mp3gain in a linear fashion maybe.

But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

geoff "


NO. And stop speculating and spreading
false information - even if it did not originate
from you.


Um, what information am I spreading ? I am trying to determine if
mp3gain can change dynamics without re-encoding.

This is why, 12 years ago, so
many good folks were led to believe Saddam
Hussein bankrolled and carried out 9/11 for
cryin out loud!

**** you little know-nothing ****. I was THERE , and i knew there were
no WMDs, as did all my contemporaries. And many of my (Iraqi) friends
and their countrymen died because of "bee-in-bonnet' fools like you.


Original poster:
I use mp3gain, and it does NOT futz
with the dynamic range of my mp3s.
It is simply a VOLUME LEVELER.
NOTHING MORE.


What is a Volume Leveller ? A 'normaliser' does no 'levelling' , just
scaling.

geoff

geoff

[Gareth Magennis]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Geoff wrote:
But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

mp3gain doesn't compress dynamics, it alters the overall level at which the
track is played back. Just like Dolby AC3 files with their DIALNORM
parameter, the mp3 file has a parameter that sets the playback level. You
can set it higher or lower and change the volume without changing anything
in the encoding.

Mind you, if you play with it too much, you can find that encoding artifacts
get exaggerated. But that's just the nature of the beast.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."





I don't ever use this function, but in mp3direct you can select part of an
mp3 and change the gain of just that section, then save it.
So I assume that means that the playback gain is not a global setting for
that track, but continuously variable, with continuous gain data within the
track?



Gareth.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:16:48 PM UTC-5, Geoff wrote:
On 10/02/2016 00:38, m wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
mp3dc trimming and cutting sections of the song, sure. And changing
amplitude mp3gain in a linear fashion maybe.

But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

geoff "


NO. And stop speculating and spreading
false information - even if it did not originate
from you.


Um, what information am I spreading ? I am trying to determine if
mp3gain can change dynamics without re-encoding.

This is why, 12 years ago, so
many good folks were led to believe Saddam
Hussein bankrolled and carried out 9/11 for
cryin out loud!

**** you little know-nothing ****. I was THERE , and i knew there were
no WMDs, as did all my contemporaries. And many of my (Iraqi) friends
and their countrymen died because of "bee-in-bonnet' fools like you.

Well pardon me - no need for name-calling here.
I knew plenty back then and knew invading Iraq
a second damn time was a bad idea even in 2002
when Cheney, Inc. was first thinking of it.

And thanks for being a member of our military,
seriously, and my apologies for whoever's bad
policy sent you to Iraq unnecessarily.




Original poster:
I use mp3gain, and it does NOT futz
with the dynamic range of my mp3s.
It is simply a VOLUME LEVELER.
NOTHING MORE.


What is a Volume Leveller ? A 'normaliser' does no 'levelling' , just
scaling.

geoff

geoff


"Volume leveler" just my term for what programs
like MP3Gain do: Level disparate playback volumes
between mp3s, so they all sound as loud as each
other without having to adjust volume between
songs.

[Mike Duffy]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:34:04 -0500, Mike Duffy wrote:

Greetings, all.

I ... used the formula:

10 ^ ((-20 - %RMSLEVEL%) / 20) (I wrote a 'quick&dirty' c++ for this.)

But I am curious. why are they not exactly at -20 db average?

Upon reading the docs in one of the suggested utilities (mp3gain), I
arrived at the answer to my question, which nobody actually addressed.

Apparently, the MP3 format only has a resolution of about 1.5 db which is
used as the 'base' multiplier for all of the final amplitude values after
they have been computed from the other data. If the volume is increased
slowly, nothing happens until it is increased enough to bump the base
volume multiplier to the next quantum value.

Thus we should expect the resultant MP3 encoded signal to have an RMS db
level within .75 db of the requested value. The actual value depends on the
power integral of the unmultiplied signal envelope. (Excuse me if I have
used the wrong terminology. I'm not an audio engineer.)

The a/n utility also has a 'album' averaging function, which is great
because my Win7 CMD.EXE script was already a few pages long and I was
thinking about how to keep relative track volumes within an album
consistent with their original ratios.

Thanks again to all who replied. Are you all always this polite and
helpful? Over the years I've roamed a lot of usenet groups and this one
seems to be missing the usual collection of egotists, boneheads, and
deliberate trolls. Now that I've got the knowledge I came here to seek,
maybe I'll lurk a while just to see if I managed to catch everyone on a
good day or if the bozos were all hung over from superbowl parties.

[Trevor]

On 9/02/2016 10:23 PM, Geoff wrote:
On 09/02/2016 21:38, Trevor wrote:
On 9/02/2016 7:24 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
There is software that will allow simple mp3 editing, without
re-encoding to yet another mp3 and losing even more data.
I use this freeware/donation, I assume there must be others out there.

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html

Yep, mp3gain and mp3 direct cut for starters.


mp3dc trimming and cutting sections of the song, sure. And changing
amplitude mp3gain in a linear fashion maybe.

But changing dynamics changes the actual encoded waveform significantly,
which surely requires re-encoding, just as if it was a totally different
song (which it effectively is) ?

Or does mp3gain actually somehow compress dynamics without (maybe
secretly, internally) re-encoding ?

Nope, but I think the OP just wants similar volume levels, not dynamic
changes. If listening to recently mastered music, it will already have
all the compression you could want. You will probably find the only way
to get similar levels is to reduce the peak level of the most highly
compressed songs, since most music peaks near enough to 0dBFS these
days. MP3gain can reduce peak level without re-encoding.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2016 7:33 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
I don't ever use this function, but in mp3direct you can select part of
an mp3 and change the gain of just that section, then save it.
So I assume that means that the playback gain is not a global setting
for that track, but continuously variable, with continuous gain data
within the track?

Not actually continuously variable as such, but gain setting of
individual blocks. So you are confined to changing withing the block
boundaries, even if it is not obvious.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/02/2016 4:14 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
Thanks again to all who replied. Are you all always this polite and
helpful? Over the years I've roamed a lot of usenet groups and this one
seems to be missing the usual collection of egotists, boneheads, and
deliberate trolls. Now that I've got the knowledge I came here to seek,
maybe I'll lurk a while just to see if I managed to catch everyone on a
good day or if the bozos were all hung over from superbowl parties.

Unfortunately there are a couple of bozo's here, (and a couple just have
their bad days) but definitely not as bad as many other groups IME.

Trevor.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

On 10/02/2016 7:33 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
I don't ever use this function, but in mp3direct you can select part of
an mp3 and change the gain of just that section, then save it.
So I assume that means that the playback gain is not a global setting
for that track, but continuously variable, with continuous gain data
within the track?

Not actually continuously variable as such, but gain setting of
individual blocks. So you are confined to changing withing the block
boundaries, even if it is not obvious.

Trevor.




Thanks.

So in theory you could write a comp/lim mp3 processor, but it might be a bit
gritty!

Gareth.

[geoff]

On 10/02/2016 09:38, wrote:


And thanks for being a member of our military,
seriously, and my apologies for whoever's bad
policy sent you to Iraq unnecessarily.

Not a member of your military (or anybody's). And there *prior* to the
invasion of Kuwait (and during, and after). And there for totally
magnanimous purposes.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis wrote:

I don't ever use this function, but in mp3direct you can select part of an
mp3 and change the gain of just that section, then save it.
So I assume that means that the playback gain is not a global setting for
that track, but continuously variable, with continuous gain data within the
track?

It's not exactly continuous, but each block has a playback gain field. So
you can adjust the gain dynamically, but only at certain intervals.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "It's not exactly continuous, but each block has a playback gain field. So
you can adjust the gain dynamically, but only at certain intervals. "

But again, why would one want to?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "It's not exactly continuous, but each block has a playback gain field. So
you can adjust the gain dynamically, but only at certain intervals. "

But again, why would one want to?

Because you have a compilation track that contains several songs and possibly
commercials in them, and those songs are at dramatically different levels or
have heavily compressed commercials blasting through them which are louder than
the rest of the track.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "In article ,
- show quoted text -
Because you have a compilation track that contains several songs and possibly
commercials in them, and those songs are at dramatically different levels or
have heavily compressed commercials blasting through them which are louder than
the rest of the track.
- show quoted text -"


Is that what the original poster has?

[Trevor]

On 11/02/2016 3:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "It's not exactly continuous, but each block has a playback gain field. So
you can adjust the gain dynamically, but only at certain intervals. "

But again, why would one want to?

Because you have a compilation track that contains several songs and possibly
commercials in them, and those songs are at dramatically different levels or
have heavily compressed commercials blasting through them which are louder than
the rest of the track.

Easily fixed, cut out the commercials, why the hell would you want to
leave them in?

Trevor.

[None]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...
Easily fixed, cut out the commercials, why the hell would you want
to leave them in?

Trevor.

So you can get paid.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "You are kidding right? This is not about commercial broadcast or "
-SNIP


Why are you replying to IT?!

[None]

theckma @ retardsRme . doh wrote in message
...
Why are you replying to IT?!

Why thank you for asking me to call you a shortbus dumb****! I know
you like that, because you keep demanding it. Whenever you get tired
of being ignored in other groups, and bawling your li'l eyes out about
it, you come back to me, because I give you the attention you crave.

Nobody else likes you. You're in a lot of kill files, apparently. Or
at least, that's your paranoid delusion. But in your little fairy
tale, it's never your won fault that people don't like you. Maybe it's
because you won't shut the **** up about pretending that you're
smarter than everyone else, when that's clearly not true. In reality,
you're pretty ****ing stupid, and you make a big point of proving it
online at every opportunity.

Now, off to other newsgroups, to **** people off by arguing with them
about why they ignore you. It's really entertaining to watch, like a
bad sitcom re-run.

[[email protected]]

YOU'RE the reason everyone is
ignoring me! Go back up to
Warwick MA and leave us all
alone!

[John Williamson]

On 12/02/2016 10:40, wrote:
YOU'RE the reason everyone is
ignoring me! Go back up to
Warwick MA and leave us all
alone!

No, the reason everyone ignores you is because you're an idiot with one
overriding obsession.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
No, the reason everyone ignores you is because you're an idiot with one
overriding obsession.

--
Tciao for Now!

John. "

How do you know what I really am? You
don't know me personally. And name-calling
is beneath you, John.

The point is, the original poster has a collection
of *individual* mp3s with differing loudness.
Several on here recommended mp3gain, which
I use and agree with such recommendation.
I'm just trying to dispel myths that it does
anything other than adjust playback volume
meta data to even them out.

[JackA]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
No, the reason everyone ignores you is because you're an idiot with one
overriding obsession.

--
Tciao for Now!

John. "

How do you know what I really am? You
don't know me personally. And name-calling
is beneath you, John.

The point is, the original poster has a collection
of *individual* mp3s with differing loudness.
Several on here recommended mp3gain, which
I use and agree with such recommendation.
I'm just trying to dispel myths that it does
anything other than adjust playback volume
meta data to even them out.

I recommend manually correcting audio.

Now, this is processed audio, found on a Sony Mexico CD. There are rough spots due to the processing, but still sounds *nice*...

1963:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...bluevelvet.mp3

Jack

[None]

theckkma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
No, the reason everyone ignores you is because you're an idiot with
one
overriding obsession.

--
Tciao for Now!

John. "

How do you know what I really am? You
don't know me personally. And name-calling
is beneath you, John.

theckkma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
No, the reason everyone ignores you is because you're an idiot with
one
overriding obsession.

--
Tciao for Now!

John. "

How do you know what I really am?

Everybody that reads the newsgroups knows that you're an idiot,
because you proudly prove it almost every time you post

The point is, the original poster has a collection of *individual*
mp3s ...
FLUSH

.... and there's that one overriding obsession, proving that you're an
idiot.

[None]

dumb**** @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
YOU'RE the reason everyone is ignoring me!

What about everyone that ignores you in groups I don't post to? What
about all those moderated groups that kicked your sorry dum**** ass
out the group and back on the short bus! Dozens, hundreds of posters
have told you exactly why you are disliked and ignored. But you're
just too much of a ****ing moron to understand.

Go back up to Warwick MA and leave us all alone!

Where? Hehe.

Get back on the short bus and leave Usenet alone. Don't forget your
'tard helmet!