HD Remix soundtrack: What files/encoding quality do you want?

[Liontamer]

Alright, so with Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix coming out on the 25th & 26th, we're going to be putting out the soundtrack on OCR this week.

djp's feeling just offering 192kbps MP3s. Not to break protocol, but it is our first professional soundtrack and I want to avoid any significant complaints that could arise if 192kbps MP3s is the only release format. We're likely not doing OGG/FLAC/AAC just because MP3 is still the most accessible standard.

That said, what encoding quality do you want for the release of this soundtrack?


Are 192kbps MP3s just fine?
Do you need higher bitrate VBR MP3s?
Do you REALLY need WAVs?
OR Does it just not matter to you, as long as it's reasonable quality?


Your input could help influence what we do for this one, so please let us know!

[Abadoss]

Option 4, please...


{Edit} - Sorry, responded before the poll was up...

[The Vagrance]

I think FLACs should still be considered as a torrent and as an alternative to .wav. Aside from that, VBR

[Ramaniscence]

I don't care what format it's in, just so long as the album artist tag has SOMETHING in it for ALL the MP3s so that it groups them together right in my iTunes :|

But I know you know how I feel about that =P

[DrumUltimA]

I trust you guys :) Never had a problem with "low" bitrates.

[Yogarine]

Two very important formats are missing from the list, namely:
FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec)) and
OGG Vorbis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis)

Please add those to the list, then I'll vote. ;-)

[Yogarine]

Anyway, as far as the torrent is concerned, the best would be to have 192 kbit/s VBR mp3 for mp3 players and the like, and FLAC for the "Audiophiles".

[reelmojo]

I voted for higher bitrate mp3s, although 192 will be fine. Considering this is a commercial game I would gladly buy this soundtrack on CD were it to be made available. Is there some sort of licensing problem with doing that, or do you guys just feel like keeping it free of charge?

[Zombie]

192 is fine! I can't wait to hear this... and play it of course.

[Gollgagh]

I would vote for a lossless torrent

[jmr]

I would vote for a lossless torrent
this......

[MrMAGFest]

I voted for WAV as it's the only lossless option, but please reconsider your stance on FLAC.

Reasons to consider lossless over lossy:
- Anyone can transcode it into their own preferred lossy format; satisfies those that want Ogg Vorbis, AAC+, whatever.
- Even those that can't tell the difference still agree lossless is a higher quality format.
- Easier to send to radio stations (higher quality source = more likely to be played)
- You can release it in lower-bitrate MP3 and people will still be able to get high bitrate MP3 from the lossless.
- People still have the choice to selectively download the format they want.

Reasons to consider FLAC over WAV:
- It is the most established format for lossless releases at this time.
- This isn't 1994. We have software that plays the format.
- Smaller filesize.
- All tags/metadata are preserved. WAV has no tags/metadata.
- Do you really want MINIBOSSES STREET FIGHTER 2 ASUM MIX.WAV because something didn't get tagged?
- You can still get the original WAV from the FLAC if someone HAS to have a WAV.

I can add more to this list but I think this is a reasonable start.

[José the Bronx Rican]

I voted for higher bitrate mp3s, although 192 will be fine. Considering this is a commercial game I would gladly buy this soundtrack on CD were it to be made available. Is there some sort of licensing problem with doing that, or do you guys just feel like keeping it free of charge?

One of the things djp worked out when the contract was written up was that we'd be able to freely distribute the music, just like always.

This is actually a tough choice. I'm looking at it as another in-game soundtrack to collect. I'm the kind of person that would alter even professionally released music if I thought it wasn't satisfactorily looped or mastered, or if it didn't have ALL the tracks accounted for. For me to do that, of course, I'd prefer lossless. However, I've done stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom 2 out of ripped .adx's and NiGHTS into Dreams... through audio cables straight out my Saturn, so it's probably not so big a deal. LAME's V3 VBR setting (which dances around 175kbps) is what I use on my encodes for listening, and it's reasonably transparent, so 192 sounds like just the right compromise.

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd say 256 to 320 for the MP3s personally, and a FLAC Torrent, if we have the trackers up. I think 192 would sound fine, honestly, but it's nice to have something lossless to start with if you have to downcode it for some reason.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

It would be great if we had the option of getting them in either format; mp3 or flac

[Dyne]

What about the different sizes of these formats? What happens when you do an MP3/WAV release as opposed to an MP3/FLAC release? What's the difference going to be in terms of bandwidth used?

I honestly want 192kbps MP3 for myself, but I'm sure others definitely want lossless formats. But my concern is the bandwidth itself, because I'm sure there's going to be a huge demand for the album.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Reasons to consider FLAC over WAV:
- Do you really want MINIBOSSES STREET FIGHTER 2 ASUM MIX.WAV because something didn't get tagged?

So I hear System of a Down did the soundtrack for the new Street Fighter!

[Moguta]

I think Voices of the Lifestream had a pretty good model. Simultaneous release of lossless & lossy formats. And this time you could put them in different torrents, since many folks don't realize you can selectively download files in a torrent.

Also, I have to agree with Brendan & gang, that the lossless format ought to be FLAC rather than WAV. In addition to supporting tags, it also occupies significantly less space, meaning 1) torrent downloads will be quicker, and thus it'll be distributed to more people in less time, 2) more people will be likely to keep it seeded since it doesn't take up so much HDD space. Also, anyone who cares about having lossless quality will have something to decode FLAC, I guarantee it.

As far as the lossy format... strictly speaking, LAME VBR at -V2 is the optimal solution (and is not always >192Kbps either, its efficiency can lead it above or below when needed). But really, comparing 192Kbps CBR with a VBR format is nitpicking for the large majority of folks. 192 sounds absolutely fine in most cases, and plus there still are some (although very few) old MP3 players that don't play VBR. Whatever MP3 quality you folks decide to go with will likely be absolutely fine.

[MasterE]

I really would just love to have it as soon as possible.
I liked how the voices of the life stream release was so they should do it like that. For those who don't know that they can choose which files they want to download either split it into two separate torrents or make a note before the download that informs them.

[Noj_R]

Release the album in a MP3/FLAC torrent like ALL the other soundtracks. Everyone wins; listeners have format choice, no bandwidth problems, etc. Why is this even being discussed?

[zircon]

VotL didn't use FLAC because I didn't see the point. It's not a widely supported format. Does Winamp even support it out of the box? I'm not 100% of that. Not all CD burning apps do to my knowledge either, so you'd have to convert to WAV before doing that. And, my guess is that most people downloading these albums in lossless will be putting it on a CD, not just loading it up on their computer. VotL's WAV format worked quite well IMO since we had the tagged MP3s alongside it.

[The Vagrance]

VotL didn't use FLAC because I didn't see the point. It's not a widely supported format. Does Winamp even support it out of the box? I'm not 100% of that. Not all CD burning apps do to my knowledge either, so you'd have to convert to WAV before doing that. And, my guess is that most people downloading these albums in lossless will be putting it on a CD, not just loading it up on their computer. VotL's WAV format worked quite well IMO since we had the tagged MP3s alongside it.

The more things out there in FLAC format though, the more interest there is in the FLAC format. Besides, if someone cares enough about audio quality to download a lossless format then they probably already know about FLAC. Using FLAC is less effort for the end user. Besides, Trent Reznor released a FLAC version of The Slip on his website so I'm sure its popular enough for OCR to use it.

[OverCoat]

I don't see why you guys still think FLAC is not accessible enough. Even still, if you made the files .flac that'd be a step in the right direction for lossless distribution of popular media.

What I'd like to see is 128-256 kbps VBR for MP3s and high-compressed .flac.

If you really want to distribute raw .wav files, for the love of god at least compress them with .zip or .rar. VotL's torrent is like twice the size it needs to be [I will forever make fun of Zircon for this]

[Noj_R]

Winamp supports FLAC,
VLC supports FLAC,
Nero supports FLAC through a free plugin,
SUPER transcodes FLAC,
BurnAtOnce supports FLAC.

Bottom line, FLAC isnt obscure anymore and people who prefer lossless media know what to do with it. I'd prefer to see a FLAC release (smaller file size) but a WAV release is alright too, so long as it is lossless.

[zircon]

Fair enough; I still think it's not worthwhile. I disagree that most people who want lossless know about FLAC, as my guess is the average person downloading lossless is going to be doing so to burn it to a CD, not to stick it on an iPod or just listen on their computer. Keep in mind the people that actually register on these forums and talk about it are not exactly representative of the entire population, especially considering how we have about 1000x more site visitors than active forum members.

Anyway, I don't really see the point of lossless for computer listening anyway since I can guarantee you in a blind listening test, most people can't tell the difference between 192kbs and lossless on a decent system, much less your average computer speaker/headphone/iPod setup ;)

[- Myke -]

192 bitrate mp3.

Can't wait to hear this..!! thanks in advance giving out the album for free.

[Dhsu]

If you really want to distribute raw .wav files, for the love of god at least compress them with .zip or .rar. VotL's torrent is like twice the size it needs to be [I will forever make fun of Zircon for this]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[AkumajoBelmont]

I accidentally voted for the first option. I meant to vote for the second one :D

[anosou]

192kbps MP3 + Lossless
or
320kbps VBR MP3



If you really want to distribute raw .wav files, for the love of god at least compress them with .zip or .rar. VotL's torrent is like twice the size it needs to be [I will forever make fun of Zircon for this]

Much like flac but much MUCH moreso, a high-end connection and bittorrent is now standard at pretty much all computers. In all good torrent clients you can choose NOT to download the .wavs and if you do want lossless you can just wait for a while.. it's not a big deal :/

[OverCoat]

Much like flac but much MUCH moreso, a high-end connection and bittorrent is now standard at pretty much all computers. In all good torrent clients you can choose NOT to download the .wavs and if you do want lossless you can just wait for a while.. it's not a big deal :/

Why are you arguing against compressing .wav files for download? It's as easy as ONE PERSON putting the .wav files in a zip or rar archive letting everyone else download the lossless files faster.

I don't know why you feel the need to tell me these things. I've been using uTorrent for many years now. I know how BitTorrent works...

[anosou]

Why are you arguing against compressing .wav files for download? It's as easy as ONE PERSON putting the .wav files in a zip or rar archive letting everyone else download the lossless files faster.

I don't know why you feel the need to tell me these things. I've been using uTorrent for many years now. I know how BitTorrent works...

I missunderstood here, I thought you were just arguing against .wav and therefore I argued for .wav :/ sorry

[Brushfire]

I really want a lossless torrent. I wouldn't listen to Kong in Concert any other way.

[Yogarine]

To sum it all up, FLAC should be used because:
* No difference in audio quality (duh)
* Easy to convert back to the original .wav's
* wav is for conservatives
* FLAC is well-supported these days
* Linux users prefer FLAC
* FLAC is more "professional"
* Distributing in FLAC will help FLAC acceptance
* FLAC has support for tags (or: wav is in fact lossy ;-))
* You'll save 50% disk space (and bandwith).

I don't know why people still cling on to wav like this. Really. First of all, (obviously) there is absolutely NO difference in quality between wav and FLAC. There are FREE (as in free beer AND free speech) tools available all over the place for converting .flac's back to the original .wav's with a click of a button (or one command line, if that's your thing).

People that want wav's to me just seem conservatives that are afraid of new formats. These days FLAC is actually better supported than wav's. And for Linux Desktop users (yes they exist, I'm one of them) FLAC is absolutely The Way To Go.

Please, just forget about wav's, it's a thing of the past. (At least for end-user distribution.) In fact, distributing in FLAC, to me, seems much more "professional" than distributing in wav.
And I'm not even talking about the fact that you'll be helping to popularize a great Free Software audio codec. The more people start using FLAC, the faster it will be accepted as a viable market standard.

Finally, one last reason to use FLAC over wav: FLAC has support for tags. In other words, if I'm an audiophile and I want to convert .wav to .flac for my listening pleasure (I listen to FLAC's on my laptop, through my AKG headphone), after converting the .wav's to .flac's, I have to open a tag editor just to fill out the tags, so that my media player will properly send the titles to Last.fm... That's what I had to do to enjoy VotL in all it's lossless glory. (And actually one of VotL's .wav's, Motor Crazycycle, was so broken that I couldn't get it to convert to FLAC.)
As a matter of fact, if you consider tags, .wav is actually a "lossy" format in that it doesn't keep the tag data. (Which is essential for many listeners.)
wav wasn't designed to be a format for listening music in your media player, and FLAC was.

At least the torrent should have both 192 bkit/s VBR MP3's (preferably encoded with Lame) and maximum compression FLAC's.
Using FLAC instead of wav you'll save at least 50% in size.
Please consider us poor mortals here in Brazil (and other, even poorer parts of the world.) that have to live with 300 kbit/s DSL connections. ;-)

[Yogarine]

However, I've done stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom 2 out of ripped .adx's and NiGHTS into Dreams... through audio cables straight out my Saturn, so it's probably not so big a deal.
Well, analog noise / low sample frequency is quite a different kind of noise than compression artifacts. And compressing audio with analog noise, will make the compression artifacts even worse.

Most console games developers don't compress their sound effects or music, they just save it at a lower bitdepth and/or sampling frequency. That means that there aren't any compression artifacts.
So there is a very good reason to also have a lossless version of music even if it contains a lot of sound effects from console games, even if these sound effects are apparently of low quality.

[DarkeSword]

If you're going to distribute lossless, distribute FLAC. Don't distribute WAV files, if only for the reason that FLACs can be tagged. Smaller filesize doesn't hurt either. FLACs worked just fine for RotS.

And honestly, if people don't know what to do with a FLAC file, they can figure it out. A little education never hurt anyone. Hell, for RotS, I just included a small text file with the distribution detailing what to do with them.

[Brushfire]

FLAC doesn't bug me. The right codec pack for Media Player does the trick for me. So wav or FLAC is fine by me. Either way, lossless please. ^__^

[big giant circles]

I actually voted for #2. I'm cool with #1, but I wouldn't mind 192-256 VBR. It's rare, but every so often, even 192 stuff can sound a smidge lossy, and it shouldn't be a ridiculous jump in file size to go a hair larger.

Also, I mean REALLY, do the people who voted that they want waves actually have a really valid reason for needing waves? Is there really anyone here who can REALLY tell the difference between 256kpbs and wav? I really doubt it. I don't see why you guys are acting like such audiophiles. Maybe it'd be better if we release the project as 32-bit wavs eh?????

[anosou]

I actually voted for #2. I'm cool with #1, but I wouldn't mind 192-256 VBR. It's rare, but every so often, even 192 stuff can sound a smidge lossy, and it shouldn't be a ridiculous jump in file size to go a hair larger.

Also, I mean REALLY, do the people who voted that they want waves actually have a really valid reason for needing waves? Is there really anyone here who can REALLY tell the difference between 256kpbs and wav? I really doubt it. I don't see why you guys are acting like such audiophiles. Maybe it'd be better if we release the project as 32-bit wavs eh?????

I voted high VBR mp3 really. Lossless sets a good standard regardless of format, although I think .wav will appeal to a larger audience.. especially outside US/Europe, i.e. japan. Still, I think a high VBR'd mp3 will do it since I doubt many will be listening to this at a high-end stereo system with a high-end soundcard. So yeah, I'm with Jimmy through and through.

[zircon]

The problem with compressing your files, Dhsu & soc, is that if people want to only download SOME of the files they can't choose which they want and which they don't. That was a big plus of the VotL torrent.

[Gollgagh]

Well then compress each one separately.

[prophetik]

i guess i'm missing the point here - why not have one lossless (flac, not wave...there's no question there) torrent and one at 192? because of that ONE audio smudge that might happen? it saves space, it saves time, and everyone's happy. it's a little extra space to let the files sit in the original download folder, but it saves a LOT of time in the end (particularly if people seed properly).

[zircon]

Gollgagh; So include a torrent of over 40 RAR files? Yeah, that's not annoying at all! :roll:

Prophet, there is no reason to create separate torrents. Any torrent program will allow you to select or deselect files that you want. So, if you don't want lossless, just deselect the lossless files... easy as that.

[Gollgagh]

well how is it any more annoying than a torrent of 40 mp3 files

==

also, are we appealing to the technically handicapped or not?

On one hand, we're assuming that the majority of people are too stupid to know what to do with FLAC, but on the other, we're also assuming that they know that you can pick and choose files inside a torrent.

what

[DarkeSword]

MP3 files you can just listen to. ZIP/RAR you need to extract. :P

Incidentally most media player programs these days support FLAC "out-of-the-box."

[Gollgagh]

Well if we wanted the audio compressed, I'd think that'd go without saying.

[jmr]

Incidentally most media player programs these days support FLAC "out-of-the-box."Some hardware players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac#Native) support it too. I've got a Sansa Fuze; FLAC support was added in the last firmware update.

[Dhsu]

The problem with compressing your files, Dhsu & soc, is that if people want to only download SOME of the files they can't choose which they want and which they don't. That was a big plus of the VotL torrent.
I thought the whole point was so they could burn the whole thing to CD?

And even if they decide to download only half the WAVs, it would take them as long as it would to download a RAR of the entire album.

[reelmojo]

On one hand, we're assuming that the majority of people are too stupid to know what to do with FLAC, but on the other, we're also assuming that they know that you can pick and choose files inside a torrentI know what to do with FLAC (click "play" and/or click "burn" because everything I use supports it) and until I read this thread I had no idea you could pick and choose files from a torrent.

I'd fully support a FLAC/mp3 torrent, although I'd personally only keep the mp3s to save hard drive space.

[FiremanJoe]

I most definitely want to see both LAME encoded V0 mp3s and FLAC files in the torrent.

[JCDenton4]

Hey guys, avid OCR fan, first time poster. Speaking as someone with no musical talent and no clue regarding different sound formats, I would like to say there is probably a significant population like me who just wants this amazing soundtrack, in any form, ASAP. Keep up the great work!

[Moguta]

Fair enough; I still think it's not worthwhile. I disagree that most people who want lossless know about FLAC, as my guess is the average person downloading lossless is going to be doing so to burn it to a CD, not to stick it on an iPod or just listen on their computer.
To be honest, I think your average person is going to look at the options ("hmmm... Lossless torrent: 500MB, MP3 torrent: 80MB") and just download the MP3s, even if they want to burn it to CD. Even if WAV is one of the options.

Prophet, there is no reason to create separate torrents. Any torrent program will allow you to select or deselect files that you want. So, if you don't want lossless, just deselect the lossless files... easy as that.
Most of us forum-posters know this, yes. But that average person you were referring to before, they're just likely to click on the torrent link and let it download away on autopilot, even if they only want part of what's in there. It's just a waste of bandwidth and time. What's the disadvantage of making two torrents?

And FLAC really is the PNG of audio. To me, distributing WAVs is like distributing BMPs. Why?
EDIT: Well, I guess the FLAC/WAV debate has been beaten to death already, as partly evidenced below. I hope it's clear by now that FLAC is no Ogg Vorbis. It's here to stay, and has some serious pro recognition.
To sum it all up, FLAC should be used because:
[...]
* FLAC has support for tags (or: wav is in fact lossy ;-))
Hahaha, yes! To say that WAV is in fact lossy because it loses the tag data... that's as wonderfully hilarious as it is true. :lol: Thank you, sir, for making my day (hour/minute/second?).

[SwordBreaker]

I'm so glad that you guys are releasing this album for free. Can't wait to give it a listen and compare the work to Asphalt.

Anyway, I voted for higher quality VBR mp3s, but it would be great to get WAV lossless packed in with the torrents at least.

[RedTigrr]

I say set it as wav format. That way each person can change it to their own personal taste in format once they DL it.

[djpretzel]

We're probably gonna do 192Kbps... and I just wanna step in and manage expectations a bit: if you're looking for badass, full tracks, you won't find them here. What we'll be releasing will be the soundtrack as provided to Capcom, which means no stage theme goes over two minutes, they all have loop points, etc. If you download it expecting complete tracks ala OC ReMix, it probably won't make you too awful happy. If you download it expecting the OST from SSF2THDR, well... you'll fare a little better:) Either way, it's free, and in particular you'll get all Jose's ending themes and AE & Prozax's badass intro theme.

If we get extended cuts from mixers, expect to see those posted here as full OC ReMixes.

[D-Lux]

I agree with 192 mp3 + FLAC for the main reason listed above: FLAC allows audiophiles to pick the format and encoding they want. The rest of us just want to hear the damn thing!

In regards to djp's post, I was half expecting it to be the cut+loop versions since it's been stated that it's the OST, not the extended OST. That being said, I applaud your choice simply because gamers like myself will appreciate the OST format being congruent to other OSTs' formats. Props. :D

[big giant circles]

I'm going to reiterate what I already said, only a bit more boldly. I bet over 99% of you jokers whining about FLAC can't even tell the difference between it and 256kbps mp3s. I just don't understand why so many of you seem to get so indignant when defending your (apparently) superhumanly sensitive ears. And if you can't tell the difference, why bother with the extra hard drive space, not to mention hosting space and bandwidth. That stuff's not free, you know.

Furthermore, who really makes wav CDs anymore? I'm sure a few people do, but lets face it, it's a dying medium. Most car CD players now either have an 1/8th" input to accomodate an mp3 player/ipod, or else read mp3 CDs, which obviously store way more music. Plus, how many of you are really going to sit and even attempt to scrutinize quality of the music once you're actually listening to it? Chances are, you're probably going to be multitasking or listening in your car or something anyway. And since you're probably NOT going to be running them through high-end studio monitors (or even decent headphones I wager), I say again, why so adamant?

It just doesn't make sense. I'm having a difficult time seeing the logic, and so far, no one's been able to prove any valid legitimacy to the issue.

Stop pretending like you have some sort of highly evolved sense of hearing guys and come back down to us here in the sensible world.

[Dhsu]

I think Moguta would be more qualified to answer, but I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with transcoding as well. Having only lossy encodes available just makes it a headache if you ever want it in a different format. Basically the same reason people distribute 10GB Blu-Ray rips...it doesn't have the highest demand, since most people are satisfied with their 480i DivXes, but at least it's an option if you need it.

[big giant circles]

That's cool, and I respect that, but I guess I'm just having a difficult time comprehending when and where and why another format would be so important to have.

Also, upon looking back, I didn't necessarily mean for my post to sound so abrasive to everyone who may have requested FLAC or wav, but rather just the people who seem to get particularly indignant about the matter.

[OverCoat]

It just doesn't make sense. I'm having a difficult time seeing the logic, and so far, no one's been able to prove any valid legitimacy to the issue

Hey I did back on like page 1

[Upthorn]

I'm going to reiterate what I already said, only a bit more boldly. I bet over 99% of you jokers whining about FLAC can't even tell the difference between it and 256kbps mp3s.
Different people's ears are differently sensitive to quality loss, so there are probably a fair number of people who can tell the difference between lossless and 256kbps mp3. But even if you can't (and I can't), the mp3 release isn't going to be in 256kbps, it looks like it's going to be in 192. And I can tell the difference between 192 and 256. AND you can create an MP3 of any desired quality from a FLAC. Or you can go the extra mile and make OGGs instead, which give better quality at lower filesizes than MP3, but wouldn't be provided by OCR because it's a less supported format.

why bother with the extra hard drive space, not to mention hosting space and bandwidth. That stuff's not free, you know.
Well, if you make the FLAC version torrent only, then the site only has to provide the hosting space and bandwidth for a single like 30 kilobyte file...

Furthermore, who really makes wav CDs anymore?
You'd be surprised how many audiophiles there are out there who really care about the quality of their audio. Chances are the FLACs wouldn't even be for burning to CD, but as their permanent listening copy.

Plus, how many of you are really going to sit and even attempt to scrutinize quality of the music once you're actually listening to it?
Isn't one of the site's goals to educate people about the quality of video game music as a form of fine art? Like, y'know, classical symphonies?
The attitude you're expressing here is very much not in alignment with that goal...

And since you're probably NOT going to be running them through high-end studio monitors (or even decent headphones I wager), I say again, why so adamant?
If you do the torrent FLAC idea, it's not very much extra effort on your guys' part, and it satisfies everyone's needs.

Stop pretending like you have some sort of highly evolved sense of hearing guys and come back down to us here in the sensible world.
Stop pretending like anything you're not interested in is a waste of time.

[anthonium]

I'd prefer VBR but I'm not much of an audiophile so any format will do as long as it's not crap.

[Vurez]

I'd prefer 256kbps personally. Since all the tracks are really short anyway, it shouldn't be too bad on the bandwidth and download times.

[anosou]

I'd prefer 256kbps personally. Since all the tracks are really short anyway, it shouldn't be too bad on the bandwidth and download times.

QFE with good reason!

[Magewout]

@Anyone who doesn't understand the desire of some people to have a FLAC version: don't forget there's also a psychological effect. Seriously. I enjoy my music more when I know I'm listening to the best quality I can get.

[zircon]

Well, lossless fans are certainly the most vocal, by far, but the poll results really aren't reflecting that opinion. I also have to agree with BGC that if we did ABX tests, I'd wager that hardly anybody could discern between a high bitrate MP3 (eg. 192) and WAV, or even 192 vs. 256.

[Magewout]

Well, lossless fans are certainly the most vocal, by far, but the poll results really aren't reflecting that opinion. I also have to agree with BGC that if we did ABX tests, I'd wager that hardly anybody could discern between a high bitrate MP3 (eg. 192) and WAV, or even 192 vs. 256.
Any democracy that blindly follows the most popular opinion is a dumb democracy ;)

And while you're most probably 100% correct on the ABX test statement, you should keep in mind that, when we download the OST, we will know the quality, and observer bias will be present.

[zircon]

If we didn't care about the most popular opinion we wouldn't have made the poll. We would have just made a decision ourselves without consulting anyone. Great way to run a community-based site, eh? :roll: My own vote was the 192kbps MP3. Simple and to the point.

[Dhsu]

I picked 192kbps only because there was no option for 192kbps MP3s + FLAC torrent, and I imagine a few others did too, because voting for FLAC as the only option is impractical (although I guess people could just use them to make their own encodes). And even then, more than 15% wanting FLAC is not exactly an insignificant figure.

[Gollgagh]

I picked 192kbps only because there was no option for 192kbps MP3s + FLAC torrent, and I imagine a few others did too, because voting for FLAC as the only option is impractical (although I guess people could just use them to make their own encodes). And even then, more than 15% wanting FLAC is not exactly an insignificant figure.

this


I would have voted for this

[Necrotic]

I picked 192kbps only because there was no option for 192kbps MP3s + FLAC torrent, and I imagine a few others did too, because voting for FLAC as the only option is impractical (although I guess people could just use them to make their own encodes). And even then, more than 15% wanting FLAC is not exactly an insignificant figure.

Was about to say that a combined option of the two was not present and would've been preferred, but you just said it for me.

Not just that but when the poll was first started the only lossless option was "WAV" and not "WAV/FLAC" when I voted. It got changed I guess. This might've skewed some votes.

That said, I'd still settle with 192+ kbps VBR MP3's and still not bitch and moan about it at the end of the day.

[big giant circles]

Different people's ears are differently sensitive to quality loss, so there are probably a fair number of people who can tell the difference between lossless and 256kbps mp3. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I'd wager that less than 1% of people can tell. This is all subjective, of course. You don't have substantial backing for your claim, and neither do I :) I'd also wager that less than 5-10% of people can tell the difference between 192 and 256.

But even if you can't (and I can't), the mp3 release isn't going to be in 256kbps, it looks like it's going to be in 192. And I can tell the difference between 192 and 256. AND you can create an MP3 of any desired quality from a FLAC.

Well, Higher bitrate isn't too far behind, let's just wait and see.

Well, if you make the FLAC version torrent only, then the site only has to provide the hosting space and bandwidth for a single like 30 kilobyte file...

This is true. I was speaking more in the context of if the tracks were hosted directly on OCR/mirrors.

You'd be surprised how many audiophiles there are out there who really care about the quality of their audio. Chances are the FLACs wouldn't even be for burning to CD, but as their permanent listening copy.

Again, this is a pretty subjective statement :P My line of thinking tends to be why care about something when you cant tell the difference?

Isn't one of the site's goals to educate people about the quality of video game music as a form of fine art? Like, y'know, classical symphonies?
The attitude you're expressing here is very much not in alignment with that goal...

Well, that's not what I was talking about at all. I apologize for the confusion caused by my wording there. I said "Plus, how many of you are really going to sit and even attempt to scrutinize quality of the music once you're actually listening to it?"

What I SHOULD have said is how many of you are really going to sit and even attempt to scrutinize the (192+) encoding quality of the music once you're actually listening to it?. Judging the overall quality of a work of music as I do as a judge is not quite the same as nitpicking the difference between a high bitrate mp3 and lossless. That being said, myself and other judges do make sure there's not any obvious and notable flaws that are a direct result of poor or LQ encoding. And I don't recall a single time that it's ever happened to a submission that was encoded at 192.

Stop pretending like anything you're not interested in is a waste of time.

Well, ouch. I throw my hands up in the air and admit that I do tend to use my own experience as a basic standard, but I like to think I'm mature enough that I'm not ever afraid to be proven wrong either. I apologize, but I still haven't heard anyone say anything that necessitates having uncompressed/lossless quality, especially when (again with the figureless assumptions) most people cannot tell the difference. It pains me that there's no actual way to run an ABX test for everyone in the community, because I'm confident the results would show that it doesn't matter.

Also, looking at the polls, as of me typing this, 17 out of 112 people have voted for FLAC, or roughly 15%. So, essentially 85% of the people that have voted are not troubled by high quality mp3s. So really, I suppose my argument is needless anyway.

Cheers.

[Sixto]

192kbps go!

[Abadoss]

To be honest, I'm really surprised at how up in arms we're getting over this. I actually can tell the difference between the bitrates and I, personally, don't care what bitrate they come out with. While I can tell the difference, it's not important enough of a topic to be worth the fuss. Just vote as you would like to see it and enjoy the music at whatever bitrate the populous ultimately votes for.

[Moguta]

To all of you who are stating that 192Kbps MP3s are difficult to double-blind (ABX) test against the original audio... I completely agree! Out of all the OCR-hosted material at their various bitrates, it took a 103Kbps Valse Aeris (http://www.ocremix.org/remix/OCR01616/) for me to really, unmistakably notice MP3 artifacts. I'm not going to say 192Kbps is bad quality; it simply is not.

However, FLAC represents choice. I notice that many are rallying against FLAC, but yet those who say they want MP3 encoded differently are ignored. Where bgc sees only 15% who want FLAC, I also have to notice that 47% of voters want something other than 192Kbps MP3. With a lossless codec, they can encode the original files into whatever other bitrate or format they'd prefer, be it 256Kbps CBR (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=479051&postcount=63), -V0 VBR (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=478820&postcount=49), 192-256 VBR (http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=478664&postcount=37), or maybe even something smaller if they want to save space.

Additionally, MP3's flaws can become more apparent when audio processing is applied, such as dynamics compression (common in terrestrial radio), splitting stereo into multi-channel audio (for surround setups), and dramatic EQing (or other 'enhancing' effects). It just seems professional to release with full 1-to-1 quality at least as an option.

However, don't get me wrong. If this soundtrack is still released in naught but MP3, I'll still enjoy it. After all, OCR hasn't stopped being a favorite destination for music, and they still sometimes release music in (ew!) 128Kbps MP3! ;-)

[Dyne]

I hate to say it, but no matter how you slice it, or encode it, as is the case, you're ALWAYS going to have this argument. I think it would be best at this point to just encode to a standard set of lossless and lossy formats making it uniform, and thereby avoiding the complaints, because everyone gets what they want.

So in my opinion, do 192k MP3, FLAC and WAV, and let everyone sort themselves out. I would suggest though that WAV be a seperate torrent, because it will be the biggest. In fact, it would probably be a lot easier to just have three seperate torrents, one wav, one MP3 and one FLAC. As much as some might be bothered by that, it's probably the only viable solution at this point.

Or at the very least, people would stop bitching because "OMG, MP3 LOLZ" or "OMG, THEY DIDN'T DO FLAC, THOSE ASSHATS ROFL".

If none of that's plausible, I'll take mine in MP3 then please. XD

[The Vagrance]

I'm going to be honest, I can tell the difference between an mp3 and a lossless formant. That said, its harder to tell the difference between different bitrates of mp3s and honestly the difference isn't a huge deal breaker but considering the increasingly lo-fi quality music that is being passed around there simply needs to be full-on lossless music that exists out there. Even if the average user can't tell the difference the point is that there is, in fact, a difference and accepting an mp3 as an equal of lossless is shallow-sighted.

Converting to FLACs and tagging them will take maybe an hour or so, and from that point forward it is made available for people to have in whatever format they want in whatever quality they want. This is OCR's first big project, let's try to do it right.

[Monobrow]

I really have the best/most sensitive/ahhhh ears out of all of you, and believe me when I say that I win this with my opinion!

On a side note, because being on topic is a side note, what were we even talking about? I'd say offer 192 kb sounds fine and FLAC would be nice, offered separately for those people that are extremely OCD and I have no qualms against that at all, you be how you gotta be, bro!

[big giant circles]

I really have the best/most sensitive/ahhhh ears out of all of you, and believe me when I say that I win this with my opinion!

that's the spirit! :lol:

[Destiny1]

I prefer the first choice. Nothing I like more than to enjoy the sweet sensation of purely awesome music done by OverClocked ReMix.

[Moguta]

Converting to FLACs and tagging them will take maybe an hour or so[...]
Even better, there are free programs which will mass-copy tags for you! Foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) -- popularly regarded as a spartan media player -- is actually very useful simply as a media file utility. Just add all the tagged MP3s, then add the untagged FLACs, select all, and right-click -> Tagging -> Copy Info Between Files. Done!

I'm going to be honest, I can tell the difference between an mp3 and a lossless formant.
Wait. Are you saying you can tell the difference between any MP3 and the original audio? Unless you've done double-blind listening tests with 320Kbps MP3, this seems highly unlikely. Sure, there are a few kinds of samples which will trip up MP3 at even the highest quality, but this doesn't occur too commonly, and while the effect is noticeably different it tends to be more-or-less subtle at high bitrates.

I'm all for the flexibility of FLAC, but I find it difficult to accept that someone can hear immediate and obvious flaws with any and all MP3 encoding.

[The Pezman]

Keep in mind that while most users may listen to it on an iPod or computer speakers (CDs, Zircon? Really?), some won't. Like yours truly. I actually don't like to listen to music through headphones, and I am planning to invest in a high quality speaker system. In that context, quality difference will be significantly more apparent. For that reason, my music collection is entirely in Monkey's Audio (a cousin of FLAC, with slightly better compression rates but for some reason not nearly as well-supported). Now of course I'm probably not representative of even .5% of those who will download these tracks, but given how little effort a lossless release will take, I see little reason to disenfranchise me. As for space and bandwidth, remember that this is a torrent, and not an HTTP download. The whole point of torrents is to save on these things by distributing it out to us, the fans, and I will do my part to seed to thank you all for the fantastic, free tunage. If you're still concerned, there are ways to make them smaller, such as different ways to compress them (put the flacs in one folder, mp3s in the other, and zip em both up, or use .7z, which is more efficient).

Furthermore, let's remember that there is an objective difference between mp3s and lossless, even if most people don't care. But this is a site very concerned with production quality. Would the judges pass a mix if there were production issues that 99% of the listeners wouldn't hear and/or care about? OCR prides itself on being the creme de la creme, so why limit availability to anything less than that?

[big giant circles]

Would the judges pass a mix if there were production issues that 99% of the listeners wouldn't hear and/or care about?

Depends on the track. I have before.

But I don't see why so many people are confusing encoding quality with overall musical and/or production quality. They're not exactly interchangeable.

It's like trying to compare listening to a fart played as a 24 bit 192khz wave vs a decent music track mp3 played at 192kbps. It's not even a proper comparison.

At any rate, I don't even care if a FLAC torrent is put out at this point. The folks like Moguta have explained themselves the most sensibly, and I respect that. At this point I'm still just getting an enormous kick at all the folks saying "hey, I can tell a difference..." :lol:

[po!]

OMG NO WAI U CAN DISTINGISH MP3 FROM TEH FLACS!

does it even matter why some people want lossless? people prefer what they prefer, doing a blind AB test or whateva isn't going to change that

and I still haven't heard a good reason why there can't be 2 torrents, one for mp3 and one for FLAC. and bandwidth is not a good reason.. this is a torrent afterall

[djpretzel]

OMG NO WAI U CAN DISTINGISH MP3 FROM TEH FLACS!

does it even matter why some people want lossless? people prefer what they prefer, doing a blind AB test or whateva isn't going to change that

and I still haven't heard a good reason why there can't be 2 torrents, one for mp3 and one for FLAC. and bandwidth is not a good reason.. this is a torrent afterall

One torrent, mp3 & FLAC, is what we're doing.

592MB, including Windows FLAC installer.

As for good reasons why not to do two torrents, well, it's hard getting dedicated seeders, and the entire bittorrent mechanism works better when there's more people on a given torrent. IMO the FLAC torrent would be dead in a week... combined torrent actually HELPS those arguing for FLAC, because it brings the MP3 peeps to their seeding aid, and what not. Plus one torrent makes our lives easier.

[big giant circles]

does it even matter why some people want lossless? people prefer what they prefer, doing a blind AB test or whateva isn't going to change that

Which is why I said I'm getting a kick out of it. No hostility here, man.

[Liontamer]

Dave wondered why I even made a poll, when it meant that audiophiles vs. audiophilistines would yack each others ears off on who's right. And I'll tell y'all the same thing I told him just now. I didn't care about the debate, I just cared about the poll.

And thanks to the poll, we now have a new album release standard. HQ MP3s & FLACs. 21st century TECH, son. Learn to love it.

[18:53] <@djpretzel> http://bt.ocremix.org/files/OC_ReMix_-_Super_Street_Fighter_II_Turbo_HD_Remix_Official_S oundtrack.torrent
[18:53] <@djpretzel> please download and seed
[18:53] <@djpretzel> for great justice