On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 03:30:15 +0400 lvqcl <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ian Nartowicz wrote: > >> The Opus replaygain spec is fundamentally broken, so let's ignore that for >> now. It is discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but isn't going to change any >> time soon. > >;) > > >> I agree any replaygain reference loudness tag should only apply to other >> REPLAYGAIN* tags, although placing R128 gain values (adjusted by some >> arbitrary amount or otherwise) in REPLAYGAIN* tags raises some interesting >> questions. As already discussed none of this *requires* a reference loudness >> tag, but if there is one then it may as well be parsed. Who knows, maybe it >> says something useful. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, nobody is >> forcing you to use it or apply it to your music, so you shouldn't prevent >> people who want it from having it. > >But *if* flac will switch to R128 algorithm, what should it write to >REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS tag? "89.0 dB" or "-18 LUFS"? (or "-18 LKFS"?) I haven't seen a suggestion for what tags the R128 values would be placed in. Is it just assumed that they will be the same REPLAYGAIN* tags? The r128gain tool writes -23 LUFS into REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS. I've also seen a suggestion for a REPLAYGAIN_ALGORITHM tag, but I don't think it will catch on. Certainly some indication of anything that doesn't very closely match the existing replaygain v2.0 secification should be indicated somewhere. --ian _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
