Music/Video audio normalization option

  Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
C-Quel Offline
Retired Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 1,467
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 3
Post: #46
Access is via the OSD when playing a video file fullscreen.

Still loving Kodi! MANY MANY years down the line... Well done guys!

iNerd Store

iNerd Forum
find quote
djdafreund Offline
Skilled Skinner
Posts: 560
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 0
Location: Atlanta
Post: #47
Would it be considered to rename that function to be more fitting. I think by naming it "Volume Amplification" considering what it's function actually is would be misleading. All this time i have never used it because of the name, and always wondered what happened to the "Dynamic Range Compression" function as i found it usefull.
Maybe "Sound Compression Level" is more fitting based on what you mentioned it actually does, or something similar. To a lot of users, "Volume Amplication" would be something that boosts the volume output, or gain, which is the same reason i haven't used it, because of not needing gain ouput with the theater setup, but DO like using range compression sometimes when at night and other's are sleeping, watching an action movie or something that has some range to it.
I know you might be set on that name, and that's why i am simply asking for at least the though of changing it to at least a better suited name considering what's it's actually doing, now that we know.
find quote
jmarshall Offline
Team-XBMC Developer
Posts: 26,216
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 185
Post: #48
Technically it is applying gain, thus is Volume Amplification. Just some bits get very little gain (peaks) whereas some get a lot (quiet stuff).

But sure, a better name may be warranted - I suspect "Dynamic Range Compression" is probably the better label.

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.


[Image: badge.gif]
find quote
djdafreund Offline
Skilled Skinner
Posts: 560
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 0
Location: Atlanta
Post: #49
Thanks jmarshall!!!
find quote
Gamester17 Offline
Team-XBMC Forum Moderator
Posts: 10,522
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 10
Location: Sweden
Information  Normalization vs. Dynamic Range Compression
Post: #50
Note that Audio Normalization and Dynamic Range Compression are not the same Nerd

For Dynamic Range Compression (DRC) discussion please see this other topic thread:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=4156

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.
find quote
makco Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #51
I recently upgraded my XBMC and the old version had dynamic range for volume. Now instead there is volume aplication, which imo is useless because that just creates clipping and a reciever or tv can already increase the volume. Just a simple question, can you put whatever dynamic range you previously had back into xbmc as an option?
find quote
jmarshall Offline
Team-XBMC Developer
Posts: 26,216
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 185
Post: #52
They're essentially the same.

The volume amplification does not hardclip - it's softclipping just like DRC. Basically, it's compressing the signal, but tries to keep the low end as linear as possible. It uses a sigmoid curve if you are interested in the technical details - see AsyncDirectSound.cpp.

Cheers
Jonathan

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.


[Image: badge.gif]
find quote
tommytom Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #53
djdafreund Wrote:Would it be considered to rename that function to be more fitting. I think by naming it "Volume Amplification" considering what it's function actually is would be misleading. All this time i have never used it because of the name, and always wondered what happened to the "Dynamic Range Compression" function as i found it usefull.
Maybe "Sound Compression Level" is more fitting based on what you mentioned it actually does, or something similar. To a lot of users, "Volume Amplication" would be something that boosts the volume output, or gain, which is the same reason i haven't used it, because of not needing gain ouput with the theater setup, but DO like using range compression sometimes when at night and other's are sleeping, watching an action movie or something that has some range to it.
I know you might be set on that name, and that's why i am simply asking for at least the though of changing it to at least a better suited name considering what's it's actually doing, now that we know.

Same here.
Although the placement is exactly the same, the name has changed and it is NOT the same feature.

Although you guys claim the original functions was an amp (the lows being amped), it is NOT the same feature.

I tried amping it. Everything stays at the same levels, only lowers (highs are still high and lows still low).

Against my better judgement, I even turned the amp all the way up and turned my TV all the way down (which is stupid to have to do that in the first place). Still same effect. Highs still high and lows still low and a horrible garbling of louds segments.

Now, I don't know why no one can see this, but the simple feature of amping (normalizing or compressing. w/e you wanna call it) is completely missing.

It was replaced or upgraded to general amplification only.

Unless I completely missed something, of course.

We should have another slider for normalization or compression (amp the minimum).

You should be able to adjust (like it used to be) the master volume according to the loudest scenes and then adjust the minimum amp to a comprehensible level. Thus, you no longer need to adjust your TV and only the minimum amp too keep dialogues understandable.

I used to have this as a 50% default setting. Anything higher would garble the lows or make ambience too loud. If I needed more I would just boost it a little, otherwise I could simply slide it down to 0 if I didn't need it at all.
find quote
ignade82 Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 0
Post: #54
Sorry guys I am a bit confused . I have my library 70gb. I want to normalize to have songs 89db.If I dont want to lose quality I have to use foobar2000 or mp3gain?
I thought mp3gain will redecode the mp3s which is bad.Instead, foobar just adds some parameter on tags.

I play my music on Kodi (AMFT) and plex on the phone.
find quote
d'Wooluf Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 3
Post: #55
(2017-06-12 14:39)ignade82 Wrote:  Sorry guys I am a bit confused . I have my library 70gb. I want to normalize to have songs 89db.If I dont want to lose quality I have to use foobar2000 or mp3gain?
I thought mp3gain will redecode the mp3s which is bad.Instead, foobar just adds some parameter on tags.

I play my music on Kodi (AMFT) and plex on the phone.

Replaygain is what you're talking about with foobar2000. You can use foobar2000 (and lots of other applications I'd guess) to scan your library and add that parameter. Note that if you're going to do it properly, your really need a well-organised library. This is because foobar will add two values for replaygain for each file: one for the individual song and one for the album of which the song is a part. It makes sense to use the album value if you're playing a whole album. That way differences in volume between individual tracks are preserved, but the average volume for the album as a whole will be approximately the same as any other album you've got. This is a very simplistic explanation and that's my level of knowledge. Discussions on Replaygain get very technical very quickly. At your option, Kodi will use the replaygain information in the header to do roughly what you want when it plays the file.
find quote
ignade82 Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 0
Post: #56
(2017-06-13 16:15)dWooluf Wrote:  
(2017-06-12 14:39)ignade82 Wrote:  Sorry guys I am a bit confused . I have my library 70gb. I want to normalize to have songs 89db.If I dont want to lose quality I have to use foobar2000 or mp3gain?
I thought mp3gain will redecode the mp3s which is bad.Instead, foobar just adds some parameter on tags.

I play my music on Kodi (AMFT) and plex on the phone.

Replaygain is what you're talking about with foobar2000. You can use foobar2000 (and lots of other applications I'd guess) to scan your library and add that parameter. Note that if you're going to do it properly, your really need a well-organised library. This is because foobar will add two values for replaygain for each file: one for the individual song and one for the album of which the song is a part. It makes sense to use the album value if you're playing a whole album. That way differences in volume between individual tracks are preserved, but the average volume for the album as a whole will be approximately the same as any other album you've got. This is a very simplistic explanation and that's my level of knowledge. Discussions on Replaygain get very technical very quickly. At your option, Kodi will use the replaygain information in the header to do roughly what you want when it plays the file.


thanks for your reply.
As you said Replaygain get very technical very quickly.
I will add first album gain tag (My single songs have "Singles" as album") and after by Track gain.
I am still uncertain If I will push from 0 db to 8 db or keeping 0db that is 89db.
I hope foobar will write just id3 I dont t want Apetag
find quote
Post Reply