A little worry about the audio format rule

de-m-on wrote: If you use the same bitrates for both you end of course up with same file sizes

Then what are you even trying to prove? That saving in a higher quality vs. a lower quality increases the file size? You're wasting everyone's time.

In the interest of doing this right, let's take a sound (I picked Major's taunt from Quake ) and see what we can do with it:

• Wave (original file): 126,348 bytes
• FLAC (Highest compression level): 96,408 bytes
• MP3 (128 kbps): 46,812 bytes
• MP3 (64 kbps): 23,406 bytes
• OGG Vorbis (default setting, q5): 26,309 bytes
• OGG Vorbis (lowest setting, q0): 14,695 bytes

I noticed no discernable change in quality across these samples. "Busy" audio (like music) will suffer more strongly from MP3 compression (especially 64k) than sounds, generally.

You can see that 64kbps MP3 (which is pretty low-grade) just barely beats OGG's default compression... Drop your OGG to lowest "quality" for even more size improvement.

Somehow you dont get what I want to say?
Read my edit in previous post.

I dont say that ogg is a bad codec.

And in your example you used a wave file

wave -> ogg -> fine

but for example:
mp3 -> ogg -> bad.

You got it now? I'm talking about lossy to lossy conversion = bad.

Also I dont get why using such low bitrates like 64 kbit in a world of broadband connections?..

And your mp3 encodes: You used for the mp3s CBR? OGG uses always VBR. To have a more fair comparison you should use at mp3 VBR as well

But that doesnt matter. That wasnt the intention of this thread at all.

The intention is that if you use mp3 as a source file - then dont convert it further to ogg - thats actually more quality loss, than staying at the mp3. If its mp3, stay at it and dont convert it further. Same for every other lossy format. Lossy re-encoding should be avoided.
If you want the better efficiency of ogg in quality - work with lossless sources - like you did with the wav file.

But converting mp3 128 kbit to ogg vorbis 128 kbit (yes even with same bitrate) gains you nothing than further quality loss - which is unnecessary - because gzdoom can read most audio formats.

de-m-on wrote: Somehow you dont get what I want to say?
Read my edit in previous post.

I got exactly what you said, now don't start trying to dance around the issue. You specifically said "Saying ogg is smaller is wrong." You tried to back up this "fact" with bad data.

de-m-on wrote: You got it now? I'm talking about lossy to lossy conversion = bad.

This is what you were saying to begin with, and I didn't disagree with that. But again, your attempt to paint OGG as excessively large was skewed by bad data.

de-m-on wrote: Also I dont get why using such low bitrates like 64 kbit in a world of broadband connections?..

Once you have lots of sounds in a mod the size does get worrisome, otherwise why not just use FLAC for everything? Not to mention that a lot of people have poor connections, even with what passes for broadband.

de-m-on wrote: And your mp3 encodes: You used for the mp3s CBR? OGG uses always VBR. To have a more fair comparison you should use at mp3 VBR as well

It's more reasonable than 64 vs. 500 kbps. You really don't have a case to call anyone on their comparisons.

OGG's standard "quality" mode is equivalent to MP3 with CBR in the sense of being a basic setting. If you tinker with manual VBR ranges you can get better sizes from MP3, but you can't replicate the auto-selection OGGENC uses to optimize its size.

Anyway, there's no reason to argue about it any more. (That is, stop arguing about it.)

....

I did the comparison on purpose to show you that it only depends on bitrate which file is bigger size.

The lonely statement "ogg is smaller" was a little bit too less and it makes one think that you thought you didnt know that it depends on the bitrate. Thats why I gave you this extreme comparison.

Default Settings use usually these low bitrates which you even target for. That doesnt mean that they're good quality.

64 kbit is bad quality - also with oggs efficiency.

And the thread was about: I worry people converting for example 128 kbit mp3 to 64 kbit because of the rule. This would just make the quality of the sound worse. (even with same bitrate it would be worth due to lossy to lossy conversion - and thats why I did this thread.
__
Sound files are usually not song lenghts. So also a high amount of at least 128 kbit wouldnt bload that much either.
If someone even cant download a for example 50 MB megawad, then he should really replace its 33k modem xD

I wrote: Anyway, there's no reason to argue about it any more. (That is, stop arguing about it.)

File size pedantry has nothing to do with the original problem, so that's enough about it.

MP3 still has timing issues that should be avoided if possible. (That's a quality issue in itself.) Transcoding shouldn't even have a noticable effect in most cases, unless it's recoded several times. If a single recode does hurt it that badly, I think we can make an exception. That's still a "what if" situation at this point, and I'm personally not worried about it.

What timing issues you mean? But also: gzdooms mp3 decoder is just bad ( http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46113 )

But MP3 is just an example. But if gzdoom also has strange bugs with sounds at mp3 - ok. That would be a better argument.

A single recode hurts more bad if you use these very low bitrates. And a format change hurts as well more than staying at same codec.

And like you've seen in this thread, people do convert between lossy format because of the rule and not because of a bug or sth like this.

I dont like re-encodes - especially between low bitrates. Thats what was the thread for. And I for example have good hifi headphones and giving it low bitrate transcodes worsens the quality. If its not noticable for you - fine. But that must not be for everyone the case.

And I also dont understand why you write that "harsh"? Cant we discuss more friendly?
If you still want to stay with the rules - I have to live with it and have to accept it, because its your website - but this forum is for making threads like this, isnt it? To suggest something or to discuss something. Why I go on your nerves then?

You come in and write "That is, stop arguing about it.", or I "waste your time" and things like that. Sorry but why?
I made a friendly opening post and there is no reason to get rude (rude not by definition but the phrases you wrote are not the nicest words as well - like you want to say to me I go you on your nerves. - dont know how to describe better as a german person, but you discuss to me a little bit not sympathetic while I never offended you

I donated 100$ to this page to get it back up and it should be possible to get more friendly answers on this point.

de-m-on wrote: A single recode hurts more bad if you use these very low bitrates. And a format change hurts as well more than staying at same codec.

And like you've seen in this thread, people do convert between lossy format because of the rule and not because of a bug or sth like this.

We need to understand that the loss in quality is negligible, especially for sounds that will be heard for an extremely short time.

de-m-on wrote: And I also dont understand why you write that "harsh"? Cant we discuss more friendly?
If you still want to stay with the rules - I have to live with it and have to accept it, because its your website - but this forum is for making threads like this, isnt it? To suggest something or to discuss something. Why I go on your nerves then?

You come in and write "That is, stop arguing about it.", or I "waste your time" and things like that. Sorry but why?
I made a friendly opening post and there is no reason to get rude (rude not by definition but the phrases you wrote are not the nicest words as well - like you want to say to me I go you on your nerves. - dont know how to describe better as a german person, but you discuss to me a little bit not sympathetic while I never offended you

Let's communicate friendly then.

I suppose a new rule: have any format as long as the audio file (lump) is below a certain file size. This means we could have any format while still keeping with the intention of the original rule.

This just leaves getting a size limit.

I rather recommend a bitrate limit because filesize depends on sound length too.

Not that we have a longer sound fits only in 32 kbit for example

We need to understand that the loss in quality is negligible

imo this depends on users used hardware and also opinion as well. In addition: in my opinion also a nigligible effect would be nice to be avoided if its that easy possible.

But you know now my opinion and the admins have to decide now if something will change