Suggestion: FLAC remixes?

[nonoitall]

Well, most of the albums have lossless files, so why not the regular remixes? I know, bandwidth would be a concern, but maybe lossless files could be a torrent-only feature? This would have benefits, not only for audiophiles, but for anyone who wanted to have the songs in a format other than MP3. Transcoding from FLAC to OGG, is very preferable over transcoding from MP3 to OGG, for example.

[The Pezman]

I'd be on board for torrent-only flacs.

[Liontamer]

Well, most of the albums have lossless files, so why not the regular remixes? I know, bandwidth would be a concern, but maybe lossless files could be a torrent-only feature? This would have benefits, not only for audiophiles, but for anyone who wanted to have the songs in a format other than MP3. Transcoding from FLAC to OGG, is very preferable over transcoding from MP3 to OGG, for example.

You'd be better off suggestions to individual artists that they make their music with your suggestion in mind; as far as OCR goes, suggesting this idea to album project coordinators would also be something you could do to promote this. But the short of it is that we presently wouldn't consider implementing anything like that as far the regular remixes.

MP3 is a standard near-universal format, so we stick with it. FLAC, correct, is for audiophiles, but it's not for the average users, and nothing is seemingly taking over the MP3 standard any time soon.

OGG/FLAC standards have been suggested and considered in the past, but unless there is a new industry standard, then it won't be considered, even on just a torrent level. We cannot reasonably expect all submitting artists to provide FLAC versions of their mixes or send us WAVs, and enacting anything like that would only limit our submissions pool.

[nonoitall]

Yeah, my main rationale for the lossless idea isn't so much that I want perfect sound, but that lossless files can be converted to any format without cumulative compression artifacts from multiple lossy codecs. Let's say Bob wants to put all ~1,500 remixes on his 2GB player or flash drive. (He just can't choose any remixes that he can live without.) He'd probably have to squeeze them down to around 56kbps. 56kbps MP3 will sound pretty awful, and transcoding to any other codec won't produce optimal results. A 56kbps HE-AAC encode produced from a lossless source, on the other hand, wouldn't sound too bad for casual listening to most people. (Certainly a vast improvement over an MP3 of the same bitrate.) Anyway that's just one of innumerable examples I could come up with.

Do artists currently have the option of submitting lossless files, and does OCReMix retain them if they are submitted that way? I can understand that some remixes might simply be unavailable in a lossless format, but perhaps lossless could be promoted (though not required) for future submissions, and for any past remixes that artists would be kind enough to resubmit in lossless form. Then, whatever remixes are available as lossless files could be distributed via a torrent or however is convenient.

[Fishy]

I think the point is that OCR has a file format consistency, and any radical change at this point would be unfavourable as the previous 1600+ remixes would have to change aswell. Currently every remix has to be under 6mb, so say Disco Dan heard that we now accept lossless remixes. He'd be pretty peeved that his Triforce majeure (the most popular remix according to ormgas still i believe) had to be encoded to 113kbs when he submitted and now everyone else can submit lossless. If he doesn't have the project files anymore, then thats tough shit?

Although the lossless would be a better sound quality, the accessability to joe average aswell as the file sizes make FLAC/WAV unfavourable overall.

Pretty much the only thing I see happening is someone hosting their own lossless archive and asking for contributions from the mixers, but I doubt anything official would be done.

[Drack]

The main problem is that all the current OCRemixes are MP3, and hunting down every remixer and having them give you the mix in a lossless form would be impossible. I wager a lot of the source material has even been lost, just leaving the MP3 as the only copy of the music out there.

[kitty]

Torrent distribution requires seeding for literally hundreds of files, and then you'll suggest batch torrents with selective leeching but that means you're telling average joe computer user to go grab utorrent or anything with that capability. Also, consider those who don't have the computer smarts to convert their songs if we go with lossless direct download distribution.

[supremespleen]

Go FLAC yourself.

[Sinewav]

I agree that it would be nice to have lossless files of OCR music. I'd kill to be able to convert all 1600+ songs to OGG format... but it's just not going to happen. Even if the DJP Cru decided to allow for FLAC submissions (let alone offer old remixes in lossless format), it would be a logistical nightmare. There's almost no doubt bandwidth costs would rise. It would be extremely difficult to keep track of what remixes had the files and which ones didn't. And you can forget about contacting all the remixers.

That and it would be a real bitch to upload them all.

[FiremanJoe]

Something I've wondered about is mp3 bitrate. I've spent quite some time on certain private music torrent trackers and these days I have a hard time listening to anything below 192kbps. On one hand I can understand the 6mb filesize limit, on the other... what are production values worth if we're listening to a poor quality file?

[zircon]

FLAC is just not feasible on a lot of levels. To respond to a few things..

Something I've wondered about is mp3 bitrate. I've spent quite some time on certain private music torrent trackers and these days I have a hard time listening to anything below 192kbps. On one hand I can understand the 6mb filesize limit, on the other... what are production values worth if we're listening to a poor quality file?

The vast majority of people don't have a problem with 192kbps. Hell, the vast majority of people don't have a problem with 128, which is the iTunes standard. Not everyone is an audiophile. In fact, hardly anyone is, so catering to that tiny niche is not worth a great expenditure of time and effort. Additionally, saying "what are production values worth" is highly ignorant... artifacts from encoding are negligible at 192, 160, 128, and really even at 64, compared to the impact of a wide range of production issues. If you choose an unrealistic flute sample it's going to sound unrealistic at any bitrate.

Yeah, my main rationale for the lossless idea isn't so much that I want perfect sound, but that lossless files can be converted to any format without cumulative compression artifacts from multiple lossy codecs. Let's say Bob wants to put all ~1,500 remixes on his 2GB player or flash drive. (He just can't choose any remixes that he can live without.)

I don't think this is a good hypothetical. It is inexpensive to purchase a player that can store all of OCR's library. Most people have pretty nice MP3 players these days. If you don't have one, you have your computer and/or CD/MP3 players. It's not the end of the world to have to switch CDs or files around every so often, not that many people even do that these days.

A 56kbps HE-AAC encode produced from a lossless source, on the other hand, wouldn't sound too bad for casual listening to most people.

How many people actually know how to produce good encodes? And of this niche that doesn't have a decent-sized MP3 player and can encode properly, what are the chances their tiny player will support that encoding format..?



Do artists currently have the option of submitting lossless files, and does OCReMix retain them if they are submitted that way?

It's not an option, and we don't retain them if they are submitted that way. We have a 6MB filesize limit for bandwidth reasons, why would we allow people to submit files several times that size?

I can understand that some remixes might simply be unavailable in a lossless format, but perhaps lossless could be promoted (though not required) for future submissions, and for any past remixes that artists would be kind enough to resubmit in lossless form.

I would estimate that over 80% of the OCR repertoire is not available in lossless format and the source files are either gone or corrupted. That is a conservative estimate, too.

Then, whatever remixes are available as lossless files could be distributed via a torrent or however is convenient.

There is no convenient way of distributing them via HTTP; that is really out of the question. If we were to create a lossless torrent, it would at best be 20% complete, and only provoke an unending stream of inquiries.. "what's flac?" "where are the rest of the remixes?" etc...

The bottom line here is that lossless/FLAC would be appreciated by SUCH a small niche that it really is not worth all the hassle required to make it an option on a site-wide or official level. If you want lossless versions your best bet is to contact individual remixers.

[OverCoat]

I think the point is that OCR has a file format consistency, and any radical change at this point would be unfavourable as the previous 1600+ remixes would have to change aswell.

Other netlabels, like Kahvi (http://kahvi.org/), did mp3 for a while, then went to .ogg for a long time, then went to both .ogg and .mp3 after that. Of course, this isn't kahvi, but the point is that mp3 and ogg coexist well and you can have either or...

Also, I can definitely release in .flac if you want, but only for my newer stuff that I still have the source files for.

Maybe put a notice out to all the artists, that maybe they'd like to reencode their songs to .flac and you can put together your own batch torrent with select songs? Obviously not all are going to respond because they're either long gone or... dead :( but hey I'm interested.

Also: I kept suggesting .flac to zircon for the VotL distribution, but he didn't even put the .wav files in any archive compression whatsoever. Just to spite me... bastard.

[Avatar of Justice]

Has the file size limit been increased since OCR's inception? If not, it seems really lame to me that a limit created at a time when dial-up users probably outnumbered broadband users hasn't been changed to be consistent with the times. It really sucks to be listening to one of the longer mixes and to hear artifacts because of the limit. I hear artifacts at 128 kbps and once you get into lower than that its just....blah. Sure, I guess the people who made long mixes with the current rule would feel a bit screwed if the file size got increased, but why hold back for a few bruised egos and hurt feelings?

If it has been increased, ignore the above rant.

[zircon]

The file size limit has not been increased. It has less to do with people being on dialup vs. broadband (though I guess that's part of it) and more about our own bandwidth and storage. I think we (the staff) have tossed around the idea of possibly raising it, but I don't think there is a pressing need to. It's one in a thousand that we get a mix that legitimately suffers because of the rule.

[Shadow Wolf]

Another advantage of the 6 mb limit is that it pushes people to do away with excessive filler and get to the mix. For example, the only time this rule was EVER broken was on April Fool's Day, 2006, when Dave posted the 11 mb, 15 minute 'Terra Fortnight Megamix' (Which I still have) . Even though it was trying to be funny, you quickly realized that if a mixer had a higher size limit, they'd also have simply too much time to play around with. The temptation to simply fill time might be too great.

[eternal Zero]

Y'know, I've yet to hear that mix.

But yea...what's been said is all true about higher file sizes, higher bitrates, and that whole shebang. I don't really think it necessary myself and it's more of a hassle, isn't it? Don't FLAC files use something other than your typical MP3 program? (I wouldn't know, at highest "quality" I've used mp3 and wav.)

[nonoitall]

Hey, I know it's been a couple months, (I was out of the country for a while and kind of forgot all about this topic). But I was reading an article about YouTube the other day and it brought up some fresh thoughts that seemed bump-worthy. (YouTube is experimenting with higher quality videos.) Besides, it's my topic and I'll bump if I want to. You would bump too if it happened to you! (Ahhh, is anyone old enough to get that? :-))

Anyway, I guess it just made me think about the argument that it would cause logistical problems. It's not like YouTubers who submitted clips in a low quality form are really upset over the upgrade - it's just a technology upgrade that was to be expected. The thing is, while MP3 is pretty much ubiquitous, more and more people want better quality or smaller size, even if they don't understand exactly how it works yet. (Honestly, do you think all the people who buy an HDTV realize that they're not taking advantage of it when they watch (unbeknownst to them) standard definition material like DVDs and regular satellite TV?)

So, as far as it only being appreciated by a niche of people, I kind of have to disagree. I would agree that only a small (but growing) niche of people understand what lossless files are and know to take full advantage of them at this point, but there are many people who just "want better quality" or "want smaller files".

I'm about to quote you a number of times, zircon. I consider all of your points to be valid and am not trying to argue with you at all - I'm just presenting my thoughts on the issues you remarked about.

I don't think this is a good hypothetical. It is inexpensive to purchase a player that can store all of OCR's library. Most people have pretty nice MP3 players these days. If you don't have one, you have your computer and/or CD/MP3 players. It's not the end of the world to have to switch CDs or files around every so often, not that many people even do that these days.Aw, but Grandma just bought Bob that 2GB player, and Bob has enough trouble paying for college without having to worry about buying another (still rather expensive) MP3 player. (No, I'm not Bob - this is still just a hypothetical. :-)) And, like you said, people don't swap files/CDs around their players so often these days (it's inconvenient) so, all the more reason for Bob to want all of them on there at once.

And really, when you add up the niche that specifically wants lossless, and the niche that specifically wants OGG, and the niche that specifically wants 320kbps MP3, etc, etc, etc, you end up with a fairly significant "niche". Many people want music in a variety of formats for a variety of reasons. Lossless files are a one-size-fits-all solution that could address all of them.

How many people actually know how to produce good encodes? And of this niche that doesn't have a decent-sized MP3 player and can encode properly, what are the chances their tiny player will support that encoding format..?Many players support formats other than MP3 (AAC and WMA are very common, both being superior to MP3) and often the software that comes with these players allows users to convert to those formats without even realizing it. Firmware updates can also make literally dozens of other formats available. (Anybody else a Rockbox (http://www.rockbox.org/) user?)

We have a 6MB filesize limit for bandwidth reasons, why would we allow people to submit files several times that size?If, for nothing else, to preserve the original remix perfectly and retain it in the event that, someday, alternatives to MP3 are utilized.

I would estimate that over 80% of the OCR repertoire is not available in lossless format and the source files are either gone or corrupted. That is a conservative estimate, too.I'd agree with your estimate. But color TV was adopted, despite the fact that most of the material of the time was black and white. The same is gradually happening with high-definition television today. The quality lost in many past remixes may indeed be irretrievable, but why doom all future submissions to the same restrictions when the technology now exists to preserve them perfectly?

There is no convenient way of distributing them via HTTP; that is really out of the question. If we were to create a lossless torrent, it would at best be 20% complete, and only provoke an unending stream of inquiries.. "what's flac?" "where are the rest of the remixes?" etc...This I definitely understand. I've been a victim of plenty uncomplete torrents myself. But don't forget the hidden distribution that goes on on P2P networks and the like. I think just about anyone who can use torrents can use Limewire, and speaking just for myself, if lossless downloads were available, I'd share them on those networks whenever I was on the 'net. If torrents just turn out to be out of the question, maybe a limited number of lossless downloads per day could be permitted by HTTP.

Anyway, everything aside, would it hurt simply to allow (not require) lossless submissions? Even if they aren't used for now, at least more remixes would have the potential to be distributed this way if it becomes more plausible in the future.

[Bahamut]

No, people are right when they say FLAC is preferred by a niche audience. I have more music than probably anyone else on this site (could be wrong, but I've yet to come upon a single person with more music than me on a hard drive), and yet I have no need for FLAC - it still takes up an incredibly excessive amount of space, and it generally is a pain to work with compared to mp3s with that additional step of converting the file format if you want to use the music with other devices. In addition, 192 kbps mp3s sound just fine - I even have a hard time at times differentiating with mp3s encoded at lower bit rates compared to their higher quality counterparts (e.g. the FF7 project mix 'Valse Aeris'), and my hearing has always been excellent in terms of attentiveness to details.

Probably the biggest blow, most people still don't even know what FLAC is, or if they do, they still tend to not care. In fact, of all the communities related to music I've been around, over here is the only place I've seen interest for FLAC, and even here it's in the minority.

Logistically, FLAC is unreasonable for a website like OCR since as zircon mentioned, bandwidth is still a limiting issue - quite frankly, our broadband here in the US blows. Also as zircon mentioned, it is fairly uncommon that a song that would pass the standards would break the file size limit with all the alterations. Just to use the Valse Aeris example again, the OCR version takes up only 5.4 MB and at 90-something kbps (92? I forget) - the project version takes up 10.1 MB at 192 kbps. Excepting the bit rate difference, they are identical songs.

I've yet to see any argument for FLAC with more pros than cons. Maybe once larger hard drives (including larger portable storage drives as well) & far improved internet become ubiquitous, then a format like FLAC would make complete sense. Currently however, it's just too much inconvenience for a small amount of benefit.

[Lyrai]

Y'know, I've yet to hear that mix.

Click me. (http://rapidshare.com/files/98416717/Final_Fantasy_6_Terra_Fortnight_MegaMix_OC_ReMix.m p3.html)
10char

[nonoitall]

But like I said, it's not just a matter of quality and people who specifically want FLAC. Sure, 192kbps MP3 sounds great, but even so, a lot of information has been removed. This doesn't make much difference to someone who is content to listen to the 192kbps MP3. It does make a difference to someone who wants to convert the remix to a different format. (Compression artifacts are cumulative.) And not all the remixes on the site can even afford to be at 192kbps.

So, if you want anything that is not exactly the format that's on the site, you're stuck with sub-par quality. Lossless files completely eliminate the problem. Audiophiles are a niche, true. But this is a remix site. It's bound to get a higher percentage of audiophiles than your average site. Not to mention, audiophiles aren't the only ones who would have use for such files. Anyone who wants something that's not exactly what the site offers could be accommodated.


But let's say that's simply not possible.


Even if there simply isn't a shred of bandwidth available for even one lossless download per month, I don't see what could possibly be hurt by allowing and retaining lossless submissions. Even if every single remix was resubmitted losslessly (which is undoubtedly impossible) they would only occupy around 30GB of space. If no one seriously has the hard drive space to store them, I'll donate a hard drive (or two for redundancy). I'll even write a script to automate the conversion from the retained FLACs to distributable MP3s, if you don't have one already.

I can't see a single con to this approach - it gives remixers an additional option when submitting their songs, and someday, when bandwidth is cheaper (or sooner if someone else can host the files), those perfect copies can be distributed. Forcing the retained copies to be lossy is like forcing your 8 megapixel camera to take 0.3 megapixel pictures because they look okay on your current equipment. Sure, they look fine now, but then when you have the means to appreciate an 8 megapixel photo, you'll realize you weren't acting with much foresight when you took the pictures.

Now, I'm not saying the site's policies are stupid or anything. But why settle for adequate when you can have perfect saved away, just in case it could be useful someday?

[Moguta]

Just to use the Valse Aeris example again, the OCR version takes up only 5.4 MB and at 90-something kbps (92? I forget) - the project version takes up 10.1 MB at 192 kbps. Excepting the bit rate difference, they are identical songs.
I had no idea that the OCR version of Valse Aeris was encoded so low, so I was rather curious about how well it sounded. So I downloaded and listened to it myself...

And, dude... I can hear audio compression artifacts ALL OVER the song. Even without comparing it to the original, the string section often sounds warbly, the cymbals deteriorate into a noisy mess, and whenever several instrument sections are playing simultaneously there is a terrible amount of shimmering noise in the background.

I honestly didn't expect the compression to be quite so apparent, yikes. O.O

[zircon]

Valse wasn't encoded at low CBR, it's VBR.. the best I was able to do under the circumstances. Still sounds pretty good to me.

[Majin GeoDooD]

I have more music than probably anyone else on this site (could be wrong, but I've yet to come upon a single person with more music than me on a hard drive)

How much you got? I've got ~119GB currently.

[Moguta]

Valse wasn't encoded at low CBR, it's VBR.. the best I was able to do under the circumstances. Still sounds pretty good to me.
I know, site policy dictates remixes must be under 6MB. I'm not accusing anyone of encoding it poorly, as I understand that such a low bitrate was necessary for it to be posted. However, given what I hear, I think Bahamut should be careful using that song as justification for his argument. ;p

Though to be honest, I'm kinda unsure how it sounds "pretty good". Perhaps the fact that I'm listening to it at high volume in my headcans is helping the artifacts stand out.

If ya don't believe me, here are a couple short snippets from Valse Aeris, comparing a ~200Kbps VBR encode (of the project WAV) with the encode on OCR. Playing the two back to back, the cymbal distortion and string warble on OCR's encode seem pretty noticeable:

Valse Aeris clip 1 - OC ReMix @ 103Kbps (http://ourworld.cs.com/YWingCDG/ValseAerisOCRVer-Clip1.mp3)
Valse Aeris clip 1 - High Quality @ 198Kbps (http://ourworld.cs.com/YWingCDG/ValseAerisHiQualVer-Clip1.mp3)

Valse Aeris clip 2 - OC ReMix @ 103Kbps (http://ourworld.cs.com/YWingCDG/ValseAerisOCRVer-Clip2.mp3)
Valse Aeris clip 2 - High Quality @ 198Kbps (http://ourworld.cs.com/YWingCDG/ValseAerisHiQualVer-Clip2.mp3)

(NOTE: Because these MP3s were frame-cut to avoid any re-encoding, some audio players may display erroneous time and bitrate information. The audio itself, however, is NOT affected by this.)

[Bahamut]

I didn't listen to the OCR version too carefully since I prefer 192+ kbps, but from a cursory listen, I didn't notice anything at a normal volume level on my stereo system. I'm pretty anal usually, but those clips only prove my point - on a casual listen, the artifacts are hardly noticeable.

[FiremanJoe]

How much you got? I've got ~119GB currently.

I've got ~275Gb currently. A little of it is lossless, but most is V2 or V0 mp3.

[nonoitall]

Just out of curiosity, how much bandwidth does the site go through per month?

[zircon]

Dave is the only one who can answer that definitively. However, if I remember correctly, between all mirrors we do a couple terabytes a month.

[Moguta]

Well, I decided to try listening to the Valse Aeris clips played through my speakers this time, instead of headphones, to be on equal footing with Sir Bahamut. And guess what? I actually couldn't tell them apart at all, not even after repeated back-to-back listens! So indeed, for casual stereo-speaker listening, this level of encode does seem fine.

However, it's worth noting that my speakers don't posses the clarity that my headphones do, and everything that I previously noticed exhibiting flaws seems to sit further back in the mix when played by my speakers. Chalk it up to dissimilar frequency response curves?

So to make sure I was actually hearing something on my headphones and not just imagining it all, I went back to do some authoritative ABX listening tests with my 'cans. And, oh boy, was the difference ever clear again.

Doing 12 trials for each clip, I was able to identify which known samples corresponded with which "mystery" sample with 100% accuracy, completing the test in only a short few minutes. It was almost ridiculously easy for me to identify the flaws in the ~103Kbps ABR track while wearing my headphones. I never had to listen hard nor play any tracks twice during a single listening trial.

Now, I know that at least some of you remixers have headgear as sensitive, or more so, than mine. All I ask is that someone don their trusty Senns or Grados or what-have-you and at least check out the samples in my last post, to tell me that I'm not insane, and that someone else can hear the metallic shimmering and warbling artifacts prominently in the soundscape too.

But even if no one else cares to try, the fact remains that some audio equipment is *easily* picking up on distortions from encodes that are forced to be that low, without the listener even needing to listen closely. Now, I know DJP has his reasons for the size limit. And I don't doubt that many folks have already tried to see it changed. But for some reason today I feel masochistic enough to try bashing my head against the wall. ;P

Since there is already an established maximum bitrate of 192Kbps, might it also possibly be prudent to establish a minimum quality? Being the VBR enthusiast that I am, I would love to see the minimum correlate to a VBR quality mode. Hell, if it were my choice, I'd see that everything were encoded in LAME's -V2 --vbr-new (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame#High_quality:_HiFi.2C_home_or _quiet_listening) mode. But realistically, rather than a VBR quality minimum, a minimum bitrate would just be a lot simpler to satisfy.

After all, OverClocked ReMix is a site all about the music, even with everything else that's been growing around it. And for many ReMixers, this site is the only place where their work will be hosted. I would hope that the judges -- and THE judge himself -- care to let ReMixes have enough room to sound clean & as intended after the necessary lossy compression. Establishing a minimum bitrate seems to do this better that trying to tweak the compression so it doesn't sound too bad.

And if one is concerned about bandwidth or about storage space, the 6MB limit could perhaps still be in place, overridden only by the minimum bitrate. And since long songs come by only every so often, it doesn't seem likely that there will be any significant increase in bandwith or storage... especially if the minimum bitrate were to be 128Kbps, which most people agree is near the edge of audible transparency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28data_compression%29) anyway. And while I realize that this may be a bit biased coming from a free user of the site (as opposed to he who spends many dollars and long hours on it) it seems better to preserve the odd long song than to forsake it to rigid policy. Besides, when a song more than 6 minutes long passes the panel these days, you know it's something epic to have survived such scrutiny. (And whoever commented that songs more than 10 minutes long are inevitably stuffed with filler... yeah, okay dude. Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach... they were really terrible with all that filler.) It seems reasonable to ensure that such musical epics get 128Kbps protection.

Sorry for length.

[Dhsu]

96kbps is currently the suggested minimum (http://www.ocremix.org/info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions) (under "Format").

[Moguta]

96kbps is currently the suggested minimum (http://www.ocremix.org/info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions) (under "Format").
Thank you for pointing that out.
So whoever reads my post above, consider it to be suggesting an increase of the minimum instead. o.o

Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't 96Kbps MP3s use a 33kHz sampling rate? The sentence directly below states "Audio must be 44.1kHz Stereo."

[nonoitall]

Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't 96Kbps MP3s use a 33kHz sampling rate? The sentence directly below states "Audio must be 44.1kHz Stereo."
Not necessarily. I believe LAME defaults to encoding 96kbps material at 32kHz, but that can be overridden, and some other encoders behave differently. I'm pretty sure the MP3 spec allows for 44kHz material to be as low as 32kbps, but of course, anything other than silence sounds horrible at that rate. :D

So, are there any thoughts about accepting and retaining lossless submissions? (Not distributing or requiring them in that state, but just hanging onto them in case bandwidth is available in the future?)

[Audity]

FLACs would be interesting to listen to but definitely useful for editing purposes. I quite enjoy stringing songs together to form a coherent theme (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15242&page=2) (just like how video games are in the first place only with visuals along with audio), and without initial OCR FLACs the final output would either be 1) even more compressed MP3 or 2) (needlessly large) FLACs from the already-available MP3s.

Also, with keeping everything at such low quality it seems as if OCR is catering to options that bring in the widest variety of population, when the core of the site's submission process is to not be a popularity contest. Sure bandwidth problems exist, but as soon as they don't exist (http://colossalstorage.net/home.htm) (just one example) there's no reason to hold back, because overall it would be an influential step to making people more aware of the medium.

[Dhsu]

I think this initiative might be much better served as an unofficial community effort, at least initially. The project leader(s) would take it upon himself to contact as many active ReMixers as possible for lossless files, and secure hosting for them. A torrent actually may not be feasible in this particular case since the demand is so low and would most likely result in few to no seeds. Although if one were eventually made, I can't imagine it would be a matter of more than a few minutes or so to add it to the OCR tracker.

[nonoitall]

I wish I had more time on my hands for something like that. :-(

[Dhsu]

Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be that involved. You could start off by doing something as simple as posting an open call in GenDisc and ReMixing for FLAC/WAV versions of people's ReMixes. You're bound to get at least a few responses, as I'm sure several ReMixers keep their source files.

[Audity]

I actually created a thread a year ago or so willing to do that, but didn't think it through thoroughly enough. I'll be learning site design 'n' stuff in the coming years, though I probably have enough understanding and possibly bandwidth already. I don't see why calls couldn't be made immediately 'cuz I'd be willing to host the files and of course torrent them, and the sooner the better 'cuz well it's obvious why.

[m68030]

I'm planning on making subsequent releases available in FLAC, and if I ever
have time to recover data from my old machine, I'd make older mixes available
as such as well.

Until there is a more suitable place for them to reside, here is a link
to my most recent, encoded at 48khz and 24bit:

http://cotmm.theqcp.org/mp3/CotMM-StevePordon-Solstice_DemnosInquisitor-48k24b.flac

[Liontamer]

Thank you for pointing that out.
So whoever reads my post above, consider it to be suggesting an increase of the minimum instead. o.o
No, because we'd rather be able to receive tracks that are longer than 6 minutes even though we have the filesize limit in place.

[Moguta]

No, because we'd rather be able to receive tracks that are longer than 6 minutes even though we have the filesize limit in place.
Apologies for being unclear. To address that, the filesize limit would be instead secondary to the new minimum bitrate (128Kbps in my scenario). So the vast majority of songs would still be limited to less than 6MB. But if a song were longer than 6 minutes, the minimum bitrate of 128Kbps would supersede the filesize limit of 6MB, to preserve audio quality.

However, seeing Dave's recent announcements as to how OCR's advertising is not paying for the site, I doubt that any such extension of the filesize limit will be seriously considered at this time. And understandably so, since such a move has the potential to increase the bandwidth expended by the site.

Such quality-preservation perhaps would be best undertaken as an unofficial effort on the part of those who care enough about encoding quality to put in their own time and bandwidth. And thus...
I actually created a thread a year ago or so willing to do that, but didn't think it through thoroughly enough. I'll be learning site design 'n' stuff in the coming years, though I probably have enough understanding and possibly bandwidth already. I don't see why calls couldn't be made immediately 'cuz I'd be willing to host the files and of course torrent them, and the sooner the better 'cuz well it's obvious why.
I would certainly be willing to help out here, in whatever ways I can.

I'm planning on making subsequent releases available in FLAC, and if I ever
have time to recover data from my old machine, I'd make older mixes available
as such as well.

Until there is a more suitable place for them to reside, here is a link
to my most recent, encoded at 48khz and 24bit:

http://cotmm.theqcp.org/mp3/CotMM-StevePordon-Solstice_DemnosInquisitor-48k24b.flac
And, whoa! A 24bit 48KHz monster! And I think most of us were just expecting simple lossless versions of the same 16bit 44.1KHz audio submitted to the site. Thanks!

I'm not sure if I'll keep the entire 72MB behemoth, besides for preservation's sake, but now I can most certainly have your song in high quality (LAME 3.97 -V2 --vbr-new) MP3! ^.^ And speaking of recovering old files, the idea of Pure Lands (Total Darkness) in high bitrate or lossless is like sweet manna. ^^

[Audity]

Either my download for cotmm's just-linked flac mix keeps corrupting or the file is corrupt. It won't play past a certain point in my Winamp or even load in Audacity.

I'm almost done with a site whose content will be geared toward user-submitted FLAC remixes from the most popular VGremix site out there (OCR VGMIX KWED THASAUCE ...and even ANIREMIX). It won't be anything close to ocr-quality in terms of coding...for now.

[Audity]

http://flacmix.escaprism.org/index.html
I don't know anything about ASP/PHP/Java(script)/VBscript/MYSQL/databases (they all seem cool but hard to initially understand/implement via webresources alone) so I can't figure out how to make users upload FLACs (only accepting FLACs) which would then upload to individual folders I have and then show a field of uploads for other users to download FLACs with visible ease.

Actually, if I wanted to open up the playing field even more, I could allow APE or other lossless formats. Not too sure about that.

[Moguta]

Either my download for cotmm's just-linked flac mix keeps corrupting or the file is corrupt. It won't play past a certain point in my Winamp or even load in Audacity.
Even though loading the FLAC directly into Audacity makes the program freeze on my machine, it loads fine when converted to WAV first. And WinAmp has no problem playing the FLAC I downloaded all the way through.

And that's a good base for a site. I know some software coding, but I wish I knew the prominent web application languages.

[djpretzel]

For the record, I'm definitely interested in offering a torrent or something at some point in the future, but I'm working on 7,837,231 diff. things for OCR right now, and this isn't one of them, so in the meantime, any efforts to aggregate are appreciated.

I don't think an actual permanent website geared towards collecting and hosting FLAC versions of mixes long term is a particularly grand idea, but building a site to help gather what's out there for the ultimate purpose of hosting torrents on OCR or elsewhere seem like it has value.

[m68030]

And speaking of recovering old files, the idea of Pure Lands (Total Darkness) in high bitrate or lossless is like sweet manna. ^^

From the ashes of a pile of dying harddrives:
http://cotmm.theqcp.org/mp3/CotMM-PureLandsTotalDarkness.flac

I have a few others to tag and upload as well. Here's what else I've found so far:
http://cotmm.theqcp.org/mp3/CotMM-NorfairFrailtyAwaiting.flac
http://cotmm.theqcp.org/mp3/CotMM-BrinstarAreciboReceptionsFrom.flac

The Brinstar track was not an offical OCRemix (It ended up being too long to fit comfortably under 6 megs, and I didn't want to shorten it.)

[Moguta]

Oooo, thank you sir! :) Hope it wasn't too hard to recover those from your dead drive. These FLACs are much appreciated.

Also, I understand how busy you are with the site, DJP. I respect & appreciate your dedicated work on it, and this is not by any means an attempt to diminish that. In all honesty however, a torrent does not seem the best format for distributing lossless remixes, since it will obviously be a very incomplete set of tracks with new additions cropping up sporadically, whereas a torrent is static in content. Also, it seems that Audity wishes to include remixes from other sites in addition to OCR.

[Majin GeoDooD]

I could see myself downloading FLACs of remixes in addition to the mp3s if they were offered.

I used to have a bunch of Hendrix APEs and SHNs, but this was years ago when hard drive space wasn't cheap and also when I was a poor teenager, so they were all converted to mp3s :/

[Audity]

I'm sure he would like the idea of a site for flacs if the background design had a huge letters saying DJP ROCKZ DA HIZZOUSE YO D00DZ OCR CHECCIT AIGHT. But torrents are good, too, though I think it's awesome to manage sites that have huge files via HTTP (and for user-uploads I plan on using FTP), as it shows progress towards better and better bandwidth capabilities. For instance, the basic plan of my Web host (Lunarpages) keeps upgrading bandwidth availability. Taken from here (http://www.lunarpages.com/solutions.php):

"1,500 Gigs Storage!
15,000 Gigs Data Transfer!"

And it's stayed the same price. It's rather quite scary. It started out much smaller a couple years ago.

I'm theoretically taking a risky chance on bandwidth by making the site available. But lots of things in which I take great interest and initiate never seem to gather many people's attention, so until I see a decent amount of people submitting, I feel like this is just going to be a waste.

(I know I'm just wasting more time not trying to get a method for upload and advertisement, but I got this sudden feeling that I'd be killing my school grades if I do. I guess that final semester stretch does it to me. Actually, instead of doing nothing at all, school or otherwise, until the last second during this feeling, as per the usual when it occurs, I should just get all my school stuff out of the way to feel refreshed again.)

[zircon]

Most hosts "oversell". They don't actually have that much storage available, or even close. They figure out how much the average person typically uses and then advertise way above that, and figure most people wouldn't use the advertised amount.

[Audity]

I figured there was a catch, but not anything like that. Don't know until I try.

[Moguta]

Either my download for cotmm's just-linked flac mix keeps corrupting or the file is corrupt. It won't play past a certain point in my Winamp or even load in Audacity.
If you're still having this problem, download the latest version of WinAmp. (Evidently FLAC 1.2.1 accidentally included a new encoding method that should've been kept strictly in the development pipeline, one that breaks compatibility with decoders based on pre-1.2.1 FLAC. WinAmp v5.5 updated FLAC support accordingly.)

As far as Audacity, we'll have to wait for them to release a new compatible version.

[radivx]

Hi,
I know that there has been, and probably will be discussions around sound quality and the "need" for lossless music.
Here are my opinions around the subject and some arguments why OCRemix should concider FLAC torrents of their remixes.

In my personal opinion, regular people on regular sound equipment will have a really hard time telling a 320kbps MP3 from a FLAC file. But as you all are aware of, the average bitrate here at OCRemix is probalby 160kbps. This might be a good enough bitrate for some music content, but higher quality recordings, instruments and synths will definitely sound much better at a higher bitrate or in a lossless setting.

Storing remixes in FLAC will also preserve the quality for the future. One of my main problems with game music today is the low quality on non-electronic music created in the mid 90's and early 2000's. Even though they used high quality equipment for the music performance, the lack of disk space and compression technologies practically killed the quality. Today, most of us can easily afford a 1.5TB harddrive, which will store almost a 1/3 year of uncompressed music.

I know bandwidth is an issue. But distributing FLAC collections via bittorrent only will prevent bandwith "abuse" by casual listening. There are plenty of people out there (including me) with somewhat good bandwidth that wants to help seeding your bittorrent files 24/7. High bandwith content also tend to find it's way to people via news services/Usenet and private FTP sites. So I doubt distribution will be a problem once the official torrents are up and running.

As you probably understood, I want a future OCRemix with FLAC files . I therefore ask you to concider this, and even though you have reasons for keeping the MP3 I would strongly recommend you to requrire, or accept and encourage optional submissions in FLAC.

Cheers for a lossless/high quality future!

[The Vagrance]

But how else can I hide my low-quality sample choices if I can't rely on the MP3 compression to cover it all up?

[radivx]

As long as we're talking remixing of video game tunes. The quality of sample source material will always be a challenge. I don't see any problems with low quality source material, but I think it's our responsibility to make sure that the sound quality of the distributed music is of the highest standard possible. This way, we give the future users of the material a better starting point when it comes to mixing, remixing, broadcasting or just pure simple playback.

I guess that what I'm saying is that low quality samples should be covered up during production, not distribution (if that's really necessary to get the right feeling from a composer's point of view).

[OverCoat]

You're not going to get FLACs of all the remixes, particularly the older ones, but it would be nice if more artists offered lossless downloads for their stuff and then gave everyone a link to that in the review threads. However, OCR is pretty resistant to offering lossless options, mainly because yeah, the bandwidth consumption would go through the roof, but having it be torrent only would work, I suppose. Most people who can play lossless files probably also have bittorrent clients. How else are you going to get flac files, really?

[Fishy]

There are talks atm addressing the (admittedly old) quality rules, however:

The reason FLAC won't be brought in officially (although there is a thread where someone is organizing a lossless remixes site which is fine) is because its a hella lot more bandwidth storing files that are essentially lost on everyone but proper audiophiles. In economic terms, demand will never be high enough for the cost of supply to justify it. The site can only just stay free due to the donations we get from that yearly drive BGC started, throw in FLAC and this site might not be so free.

[DarkeSword]

As long as we're talking remixing of video game tunes. The quality of sample source material will always be a challenge. I don't see any problems with low quality source material, but I think it's our responsibility to make sure that the sound quality of the distributed music is of the highest standard possible. This way, we give the future users of the material a better starting point when it comes to mixing, remixing, broadcasting or just pure simple playback.

I guess that what I'm saying is that low quality samples should be covered up during production, not distribution (if that's really necessary to get the right feeling from a composer's point of view).
He was joking.

[liquid wind]

I want to see someone submit something at 32kbps, quality is overrated :)

[The Vagrance]

He was joking.

Thank you.

I think the main problem is just the amount of work that would have to go into creating a new FLAC torrent, collecting all of the FLAC files, plus it would make submitting songs to OCR much harder because the submitter would have to find a place to submit FLAC to, not to mention more work on the judges, and while it doesn't seem like all that much it really adds up considering this is a volunteer-driven site and most everyone (if not, everyone) who makes this site what it is has more important things to be doing.

Plus, a lot of the old remixes it wouldn't even be worth trying to get FLACs of them considering the amount of contacting one would have to do, not to mention the fact that a lot of remixers may not even have the original project files (I know I don't). Also, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the community at all as it applies to me as well, but for a lot of remixes it wouldn't be worth doing because any samples used may be running at 44.1/16, or their sound card may not be capable of anything higher, or anything else that may degrade the overall sound quality and having FLACs is only minimally better than a "high-quality mp3". Relatively little recording is done on this site, aside from guitars and the occasional woodwind or something, and typically that is where one would want a FLAC.

If you want FLAC files your best best would probably be to contact the artist directly and I highly doubt any of them wouldn't give you one unless it was just generally inconvenient for them (like they don't have all of the parts, missing plugins, etc.), but its really not OCR's problem to deal with.

[Bleck]

'these samples aren't recorded directly from the piano that paul mccartney recorded hey jude with what the hell NO'

- ocr judges

I am kidding

[radivx]

Hehe. Will try to team up with other lossless enthusiasts and get hold of FLAC versions of OCRemixes. I've shared my thoughts with the OCRemix community, hopefully the admins will concider them. Thanks for opinions and jokes :P

[FireSlash]

No FLAC please, but I'd love to see some higher bitrates. Maybe the filesize limit could get a minor bump to accomidate some V0 goodness, assuming the mirrors don't mind.

[Arcana]

You might want to talk to the guy in this thread

http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25459

[OverCoat]

I want to see someone submit something at 32kbps, quality is overrated :)

you might like this:
http://20kbps.sofapause.ch/
an entire netlabel devoted to creating music in 20 kbps

[radivx]

I didn't know it was possible to make chiptune music sound like crap. 20kbps is just too low for... uhm... anything...

FLAC FTW!

[OverCoat]

I didn't know it was possible to make chiptune music sound like crap. 20kbps is just too low for... uhm... anything...

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8524/missingthepoint.png

[radivx]

Hehe... Perhaps because the music from the label had been cool at a higher bitrate :P

[Fishy]

I think you're forgetting that sometimes "bad" quality can actually be enjoyable. Take the soundtrack to Fallout 3; mostly 40/50s music. The recording quality adds a great character and maintains the cohesive feel of the ost as a whole. The old music in fallout 3 is what made it stand out to me as a whole.

eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfcvFuPy5Ko

In other words technical quality ain't everything, and it isn't even always wanted. Why do you think people put digital music through tape reels? It sure isn't so that they have to resample and dither it all again loosing technical quality, its for the feel and the sound.

[radivx]

Creating music with filters isn't my problem at all. As you say it in some situations essential to.

I wish to ensure that the quality of the music is limited only by the intention of the componser, not technical limitations in lossy compression formats and due to bitrate restrictions.

[Edwardzc]

I never really understood why OC remix remixers(amazing people) never upload their work in a lossless format? I'm getting a box soon to help with the seeding of the files but most of them are 128Kbps? is this to save file size?

Lossless can go to lossy without data loss whereas lossy to lossy loses info

[atmuh]

if you ask remixers personally sometimes they will provide you with higher quality formats

[Kenogu Labz]

From 'Submission Standards and Instructions':

1. Submissions must be MP3 format audio files.

Bitrate must not exceed 192kbps.
Bitrate must be high enough to convey detail; a 128kbps average is suggested as a minimum.
Audio must be 44.1kHz Stereo.

2. Submissions must be 8MiB (8,388,608 bytes) or less.

A really big part of this is bandwidth. OCRemix hosts these at no charge to the people who listen, and they get an enormous amount of bandwidth, which they have to pay for. This also helps ensure that the audio is of consistent quality site-wide. I'll defer to anyone else who has better reasons, though, cuz I'm not a judge, so there are likely other reasons I don't know about.

Oh, and like Atmuh said, artists will sometimes render high-quality versions as well, but it's a case-by-case basis.

[zircon]

Space, bandwidth, etc. Keep in mind OCR was started in 1999... space and bandwidth were even more at a premium then, and very few people relative to today had broadband. But even today, it's not feasible for most people to render everything they do as lossless and share it like that. MP3 is just more convenient.

[Edwardzc]

I see. Costs/bandwidth/standards. Thanks.
The reason I ask is because I come from an audiophile community and lossless is key whereas 128Kbps mp3 is frowned upon because of 'low quality' and it does not retain the music's original like a cd does.

ty!

[zircon]

I understand, and luckily with our site projects, bandwidth/space is less of an issue thanks to torrents, so there are basically always lossless files. Also, as atmuh said you can ask individual artists for lossless versions - they might give them to you if they have them. For example, while I keep lossless versions of a lot of my more recent material, my old stuff is essentially lost over the course of various hard drive crashes.

[K.B.]

Well, if it were only a torrent, then the only drawbacks would be the collecting hard drive's storage space and the fact that the mixes would have to be listened to twice - once for the mp3 submission and a second time for the flac (or whathaveyou) after the mix is posted. So no, the submission policy wouldn't have to change; this would only be for posted mixes. The onus would be on the artist to forward the flac after his mix was posted, and you wouldn't want to allow it for mixes before the the policy addendum (if this gets the greenlight at say 2400, 2313 couldn't resend a flac).

It certainly wouldn't be a priority, and it would be a bit of work to QC the flacs, and yeah the flac torrent would never be pretty and complete, but it seems to me it would be feasible. And I'd put money down that you'd get a lot more mixers willing to forward a flac once for a torrent than responding to PM requests, so it would be a boon for audiophiles.

What I'm saying is that I think there's merit enough to at least consider tacking this onto the bottom of the gigantic list of things djp and co want to do with the site, since bandwidth really wouldn't be a "no override" here.

Fat chance now but maybe in n years?

[zircon]

But inevitably NOT everyone will be able to provide lossless versions. We get subs and posted remixes now that were created years and years ago. So the torrent would necessarily incomplete, and why would we put something out to the public that is incomplete? We'd never hear the end of it.

[K.B.]

Such criticism would carry almost as much weight as 'vocals sux' or 'make your free music better'.

But yeah, you're probably right. The annoyance with having to ignore so many ungrateful posts could very well negate the joy of giving an easter egg of sorts.


But if there's a change of heart let me know. I'd dive in the trenches for this. I'd go on troll patrol.

[Flexstyle]

I suspect there are several members of this community who, like me, are tortured by the heavy MP3 compression necessary for OCR to host so many remixes. I like my music to be FLAC, or some other lossless codec, whenever possible, and I'm sure many people here would agree. To that end, I've created a subdomain on my own webspace, OCRLossless.FlexstyleMusic.com (http://ocrlossless.flexstylemusic.com), which has my one humble remix to start with. If any posted artists would like to send me their tracks in FLAC format, I'll stick 'em up on my server. Just email them to me at music at flex style music dot com, using Mediafire or Speedyshare or whatever you need to get a lossless file over to me. I'll see how this goes, since my current hosting plan includes unlimited disk space and unlimited bandwidth.

Please note: I'll happily terminate this operation if the OCR site staff objects to it.

[Josh Whelchel]

Why hasn't OCR jumped on Bandcamp yet - they have support for multiple artists. Lossless love.

[Flare4War]

I'm a fan of FLAC whenever I can get it as well.

[José the Bronx Rican]

I'm a fan of FLAC whenever I can get it as well.

An agreeable position, and I offer FLACs on my site as well - I've always seen that as a satisfactory enough solution - but I'm not seeing "heavy", and I'm not believing "tortured".

[Flexstyle]

I'm not seeing "heavy", and I'm not believing "tortured".

Okay, maybe "tortured" is a bit of an overstatement (more like "annoyed"), but I stand by my usage of "heavy" in regards to MP3 compression. 192kbps literally strips 92% of the data out of the audio, and I can always tell the difference between a lossless file and nearly any MP3 that's 256kbps and under. I realize there aren't many people who would consider themselves audiophiles like me. However, I figured that there must be enough out there in a community of this size to make this venture worthwhile.

[zircon]

192kbps MP3 does not effectively remove 92% of data. There have been plenty of blind and double-blind tests done on the topic; even in lab settings, 192kbps MP3 is nearly indistinguishable from lossless. Almost any differences you hear can be attributed to pure psychological effects.

[Platonist]

192kbps MP3 does not effectively remove 92% of data. There have been plenty of blind and double-blind tests done on the topic; even in lab settings, 192kbps MP3 is nearly indistinguishable from lossless. Almost any differences you hear can be attributed to pure psychological effects.

^ this ^ .
but 192kbps is the absolute edge. i can clearly tell the difference. but im not everyone. i prefer 256 or higher.. but VBR is where i usually end up in my encodes

[Bahamut]

I suspect there are several members of this community who, like me, are tortured by the heavy MP3 compression necessary for OCR to host so many remixes. I like my music to be FLAC, or some other lossless codec, whenever possible, and I'm sure many people here would agree. To that end, I've created a subdomain on my own webspace, OCRLossless.FlexstyleMusic.com (http://ocrlossless.flexstylemusic.com), which has my one humble remix to start with. If any posted artists would like to send me their tracks in FLAC format, I'll stick 'em up on my server. Just email them to me at music at flex style music dot com, using Mediafire or Speedyshare or whatever you need to get a lossless file over to me. I'll see how this goes, since my current hosting plan includes unlimited disk space and unlimited bandwidth.

Please note: I'll happily terminate this operation if the OCR site staff objects to it.

From what I recall being told, the filesize limit is to encourage people to do more with what's there as opposed to ridiculously long medleys that are for better or worse mediocre when compared to a more interpretive work - FLAC also takes up a ridiculous amount of space still for regular hosting I'd think, making it impractical for a site the size of OCR when you consider bandwidth usage.

[Flexstyle]

Most people haven't had their ears trained to the point where they can distinguish between a 192k MP3 and, say, a 320k MP3. I personally have, and isn't this a matter of preference anyways? I realize that it's impractical for OCR to host larger files, and I certainly see the wisdom of limiting file size in lieu of preventing massively mediocre medley melodies. The original offer I made--that is, to use my own personal site space to host lossless versions of songs that have already been posted to OCR--still stands.

On a personal note, there are several songs on OCR that I'd reeeeaaallly love to hear in a lossless codec, and I'll probably PM certain artists and ask if they'd be willing to send me some of their tracks. *looks at zircon*

[analoq]

Somebody was working on a project along these lines and I sent them a bunch of my remixes in lossless format. You should get in touch with them, the thread is here: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25459

192kbps MP3 does not effectively remove 92% of data.
Of course it does. It just does so very selectively so that (hopefully) no one notices.

Most people haven't had their ears trained to the point where they can distinguish between a 192k MP3 and, say, a 320k MP3. I personally have, and isn't this a matter of preference anyways?
It's not a matter of preference if you're talking strictly audio quality; you're pretty much talking out your ass when you say you can perceive the difference between 256kbit mp3 and the original audio. But if you want lossless for hi-def interoperability between formats (e.g. burning to CD, cross-encoding, steaming audio, etc.) then that's fine and dandy.

cheers.

[zircon]

Of course it does. It just does so very selectively so that (hopefully) no one notices.

That's why I qualified my statement with "effectively" - it doesn't SOUND like 92% of the track is missing. That's what I meant :<

By the way, I'm not anti-lossless or anything. All of the digital downloads on my own website are lossless, so I definitely think it's great to have the option.

[Liontamer]

From what I recall being told, the filesize limit is to encourage people to do more with what's there as opposed to ridiculously long medleys that are for better or worse mediocre when compared to a more interpretive work - FLAC also takes up a ridiculous amount of space still for regular hosting I'd think, making it impractical for a site the size of OCR when you consider bandwidth usage.
The first part about the filesize limit is right. The second part about why we don't host FLACs for individual ReMixes is not.

We're down with hosting FLACs of ReMixes, though until bandwidth is cheaper, we'd probably just keep it torrent-based, not available individually, like we do with our album FLACs. But in 5 years, improvements in technology could make FLACs a drop in the hat.

That said, I'm totally fine with gathering FLACs of OC ReMixes, and we can make that official. Letter coming soon to all ReMixers...

[Dunther]

I try to keep all my music at 320kbps when possible, but I don't listen FLACs too often. I burn them into CDs and occasionally chose one to listen in full lenght, but lossless music is not a standard to me.

Anyway, having the option could be a really good thing :)

[Aetherius]

So...
That mass email caught my attention.

Someone should come forward with temporary hosting for people who don't have their own hosting, so that people like me can offer their shitty remixes in a quality such that said shittiness can be heard in all of its glorious detail.

Douggles?

[Liontamer]

So...
That mass email caught my attention.

Someone should come forward with temporary hosting for people who don't have their own hosting, so that people like me can offer their shitty remixes in a quality such that said shittiness can be heard in all of its glorious detail.

Douggles?

Megaupload?

[Xenon Odyssey]

Larry I send e-mail!

[jmr]

Just stopping by to say that I support this effort. I've still got the original wav version of my one remix and access to at least a few of Random Hero's mixes. We've been without internet at chez Roberts for a few days now, so when we're connected again I'll be sure to send whatever I can along.

[Flare4War]

Like Zircon said, for most people they probably won't be able to tell the difference. You have to have really nice equipment to really distinguish the difference between a decent quality mp3 and a flac.

I have excellent headphones both portables and cans for when I'm at my computer, and a decent (albeit old) sound card as well. So I support this effort.

[Aetherius]

Megaupload?

You think you're so smart...

Where do we send links and such? Would you enjoy delicious PMs?

[Bahamut]

You think you're so smart...

Where do we send links and such? Would you enjoy delicious PMs?

I can host files for people

[Flexstyle]

Where do we send links and such?

Larry mentioned in the email he sent out that you could just reply to the email with a link and it'd get taken care of. The address was admin at o c re mix dot org, of course.

[DarkeSword]

Pure lossless is bad!!!! You're losing the warmth of the sound that comes from lossy compression!!!!

[zircon]

Interestingly, there are apparently some findings which indicate youth today actually preferred the compressed sound of MP3s to lossless/CD.

[Flare4War]

Interestingly, there are apparently some findings which indicate youth today actually preferred the compressed sound of MP3s to lossless/CD.

As far as sound is concerned you mean? Or just for the fact that having a music library in FLAC or other lossless file types takes a huge amount of hard drive space in comparison to mp3's.

[zircon]

They actually preferred the SOUND of MP3s.

[DarkeSword]

It's the same reason some people say that analog recording is "better" than digital recording. It has nothing to do with an accurate replication of the sound, but more to do with being used to the imperfections added by an imperfect replication method.

[Flare4War]

I suppose people can have that preference if they want. Too each there own and all that, but it sounds like naiveté to me.

[Bahamut]

I suppose people can have that preference if they want. Too each there own and all that, but it sounds like naiveté to me.

Sounds no different to me than people claiming that FLAC is better than mp3 in all shapes and forms.

[Rambo]

It's like watching high definition amateur pron. Noone really wants that. :lol:

[Bleck]

sometimes I like to pretend that flacs sound different than mp3s and it makes me feel like a big man

[Flare4War]

Like I said, it's hard if even possible to tell the difference unless you have really nice equipment. If you do it becomes a lot more transparent.

I would never attempt to have my entire music library in FLAC, definitely not worth the trouble. But having a few of your favorite songs and remixes in lossess is kinda fun.

[ambinate]

i only listen to death magnetic

[Gollgagh]

Pure lossless is bad!!!! You're losing the warmth of the sound that comes from lossy compression!!!!

not directly related, but some people actually have this attitude towards jpg vs png

[Liontamer]

MOAR Lossless OC ReMixes, plz. Lemme know if you gotz 'em, artists!

[Jedi QuestMaster]

not directly related, but some people actually have this attitude towards jpg vs png

I can understand film over digital

but jpg over png? There is nothing glorifying noticing minor pixel discrepancies. :banghead:

[Musicus]

We want FLAC now please!

[Neblix]

Simply put it's a lot of work and everyone's lazy.