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

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?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 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, -V0 VBR, 192-256 VBR, 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! ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

×
×
  • Create New...