Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
GitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
These changes mostly consist of replacing the preprocessor symbol MACOSX by the more generic APPLE. (MACOSX is not even defined for my os x version 10.7.5, i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1)
One more important change is renaming the Windows-specific directory from "WaveGain" to "mswindows". I'm confident that the windows version still works with these changes.
I'm aware of normalize and its debian package normalize-audio, but it only performs peak normalization, while wavegain does replaygain, which is a more advanced normalization, based on power instead of peak, that relies on psychoacustics for perceived loudness (while still preventing peak clipping like normalize does)
There's a section in the help of normalize that seems to suggest that "normalize" does more than simple peak analysis:
I've run an analysis only on the same audio file with both tools:
So normalize seems to come up with a gain of 10.6144 dB, where WaveGain only gains 8.31 dB...
I'm not sure which to use.
Looks like you're correct: http://normalize.nongnu.org/README.html makes clear that normalize also uses RMS amplitudes for calculating the gain, so it is better than simple peak normalization. But their algorithms used to calculate the gain are different: WaveGain uses the replaygain standard, while normalize uses its own made up algo, which is similar in concept.
Since replaygain was proposed by the hydrogenaudio community, and implemented in several players and encoders, I'd stick with it rather than using the one created by normalize. At least you would get consistent results with mp3gain, vorbisgain, metaflac, etc..