Jump to content

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


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

130 members have voted

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

    • 192kbps MP3s are fine
    • Higher bitrate (>192kbps) VBR MP3s
    • FLAC/WAVs (lossless)
    • The format doesn't matter. I trust you guys!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?????

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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
I 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...