Volumio has a feature for volume normalization, wich I believe is track volume normalization, and with an alert of possible quality loss activating this feature.
Is it possible to implement:
1 - Option for volume normalization by track or by album normalization?
2 - Defining or not, a target volume normalization according to the option 1?
3- I believe it is possible to implement this without, or at least very minimal, quality loss. Is it possible?
This would be a must have and wonderful and must have feature for volumio (IMHO).
Hi, I don’t mean to have this sound snarky.
What you are asking for is Replay Gain, which is supported by mpd but there is no menu option to enable it in Volumio. If you edit /app/plugins/audio_interface/music_service/mpd/mpd.conf.tmpl and uncomment the replaygain entry and change the “album” to “auto”, it will do what you want if you have replaygain tags in your audio files. If you don’t have the tags there are several great options to add the tags without changing the audio itself. dbpoweramp is the one I use. You do not want to use the option in any converter to apply the replay gain to the audio. Just write the tags.
ONE DRAW BACK…
by editing this file the update feature will break. It sees the change and it won’t update the system anymore. Very over dramatic imho. a single edit to a text file should not cause the whole update system to freak out and demand a full system reset to factory to do the update. So save a copy of the original file and the edited one.
Do you think it’s overdramatic?
Some requirements must be met in order to perform a successful upgrade. keep in mind Volumio is a tailored OS. to provide the best output.
It’s undoable to maintain exclusion list, of single files which could have been modified. Volumio has no clue what was changed, what impact it has on new code.
So if people decide to make changes to files and the update breaks because of this who is supposed to correct this. Volumio or the end-user?
So the rephrase, your remark. Is it sometimes annoying? => YES Is it dramatic? => NO
Hi @Wheaten , could this replay gain option to be considered in future version of Volumio? That way it would be imlemented without “breaking” the OS / future updates.
Unfortunately I am just the forum moderator, I can’t make promises on this.
However I do see the value of such feature, especially with a random of sources available.
But are we talking on volume normalization (adjust the volume by Max peak detected) or loudness normalization (adjusts the volume based on the perceived loudness)?
Do we scan the full database and write tags or on the fly?
Option for Loudness normalization or Peak normalization (option choosed by user);
Option for album by album or track by track normalization (option choosed by user);
Read the replaygain contained in the files (optimal would by volumio have option, when building library to write this information, when absent)
Feature available for multiple audio sources.
Minimal solution:
Loudness normalization
Album by Album normalization (to maintain the relative volume whithin each track of each algum)
Read replaygain info already in files
Feature only available for personal library of audio files.
PS - My main reason isn’t even due to multiple audio sources (library, spotify and so on), but due to the fact that my personal library music has huge differences in volume.
Thanks @pjorgenunes the minimal solution is something we can consider!
As of now we are in the process of migrating several parts of the audio stack (including mpd) to newer versions. Once this is completed I’ll take a look at it
PS: It’s a mystery to me why a sound engineer should mix tracks in the same album with different volume levels!
Just to be absolutely clear, when I’m talking about album by album normalization, I’m talking on getting the average loudness of that album, thus maintaining the relative difference between the tracks within the album.
Anyway (needs more investigarion) I believe that ReplayGain info stored on the files might do this, thus the player had only to look at this info (but I’m not sure).
) would be: