Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. osu!
  3. Development
  4. Feature Requests
  5. Completed Requests

[Editor] Slower/Faster Playback Rates [invalid]

posted
Total Posts
24
This is a feature request. Feature requests can be voted up by supporters.
Current Priority: +15
Miya
2,690 posts
Joined June 2011
Topic Starter
Miya
As you can see now we have this in editor now :


After my experience in finding timing, i realize that we should have slower playback to determine better timing. For really fast song, i think 25% playback rate is not enough. Especially for not pro-timer like me. Maybe we can add more slower playback, like 5% 10% and 15%.

those wrote:

Would love to see 150% Playback Rate too, to simulate DT.

[CSGA]Ar3sgice wrote:

Support for 5%-200%.

Derekku wrote:

Faster rates would benefit when modding slower/easier maps. Not to say that they're boring or anything, but it would be helpful in various ways. :p
And well, since many people suggest faster playback rate too. Maybe we can add faster playback rates for many various thing. :)
Last edited by Miya , edited 1 time in total.
Kurai
osu! Alumni
7,734 posts
Joined March 2009
Kurai
Support because it'd be very useful for mapping very fast song !
Yasora
2,702 posts
Joined May 2010
Yasora
woo
Sekai
6,376 posts
Joined February 2011
Sekai
o.o nice yes, it's gonna be really helpful~

so i support it =w=
those
3,136 posts
Joined November 2010
those
Would love to see 150% Playback Rate too, to simulate DT.
Aqo
2,710 posts
Joined April 2010
Aqo
I wanted to suggest this in the past until I learned to listen to 880bpm music (damnit renard) so now 25% feels like enough, mostly. Still, having a higher range on this (both for lower speeds and higher ones like those mentioned) would be much appreciated, and will help a lot for things like detecting the correct offset on high BPMs. +support
[CSGA]Ar3sgice
4,298 posts
Joined July 2011
[CSGA]Ar3sgice
Support for 5%-200%.
Stefan
Global Moderator
10,407 posts
Joined January 2011
Stefan
I don't see why not.
winber1
4,520 posts
Joined February 2010
winber1

those wrote:

Would love to see 150% Playback Rate too, to simulate DT.
but actually.

support
Derekku
COOL DUDE
7,270 posts
Joined March 2009
Derekku
You can't go slower than 25%? o_O I don't think that I ever tried going slower, but I always assumed that you could. I mean... the little tick marks on there on the playback rate which scale down to 0%...

In that case, I wonder if this is a bug or just a cosmetic error... Also, there was an old request for playback faster than 100% here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17869

I guess I'll just leave this one though, since it already has priority stars and also asks for slower rates.
Miya
2,690 posts
Joined June 2011
Topic Starter
Miya
No, we can't go slower to 25%. The 25% is the minimum now. Too bad, it would be good if we have 5%, 10%, and 15% slower playback rate to make timing more precise. Especially in finding the offset, or for beat placement in very fast or high tempo song :(

I don't ask for faster playback rate. Slower playback rate is enough >.<
But well, if you can add faster playback rate, it is a good thing too. So why not?
haha5957
1,433 posts
Joined July 2010
haha5957

Kurai wrote:

Support because it'd be very useful for mapping very fast song !
Derekku
COOL DUDE
7,270 posts
Joined March 2009
Derekku

Miya wrote:

I don't ask for faster playback rate. Slower playback rate is enough >.<
Faster rates would benefit when modding slower/easier maps. Not to say that they're boring or anything, but it would be helpful in various ways. :p
peppy
19,316 posts
Here since the beginning
peppy
Going lower than 25% is NOT more precise. In fact, going that low is arguably less precise than 100%. This is due to the way music is reproduced digitally, and the limitations involved in slowing limited-resolution samples down. This will never happen.

Going above 100% can be done, but personally I do not see the need. If you can't mod/map at 1x speed you probably should work on your patience.
LKs
3,119 posts
Joined August 2009
LKs
lower playback rates make a single beats sound longer. It requires higher discretion because you'd be good enough to decide whether the beginner or the end part of the beat is the real offest.

anyway, more flexible range is always a good thing imo. or add mods to editor pretty cool too
peppy
19,316 posts
Here since the beginning
peppy
Unless you have studied the algorithm used for slowing the samples and are familiar with the sample source (ie. the instrument or patch being used), this is an invalid point.

If you want lower than 25%, use a sound editor and time it yourself. This feature will never be implemented.
Yuzeyun
7,622 posts
Joined September 2010
Yuzeyun

LKs wrote:

lower playback rates make a single beats sound longer. It requires higher discretion because you'd be good enough to decide whether the beginner or the end part of the beat is the real offest.

anyway, more flexible range is always a good thing imo. or add mods to editor pretty cool too
For something looking like this at 100%, the scale of the beats will be a 4:1, which makes indeed harder finding a real offset for the kick thingy, like this (Scale unchanged)

I can time with 25%, I personnally don't see the point with timing at 5%. It will end up totally distorted and impossible to time. >_>

You can ask help to better timers if you can't really tell what is the timing, you know !

Adding the DT speed is okay imo, and maybe re-design the speed scaling as it can get confusing ? :V
LKs
3,119 posts
Joined August 2009
LKs

_Gezo_ wrote:

LKs wrote:

lower playback rates make a single beats sound longer. It requires higher discretion because you'd be good enough to decide whether the beginner or the end part of the beat is the real offest.

anyway, more flexible range is always a good thing imo. or add mods to editor pretty cool too
For something looking like this at 100%, the scale of the beats will be a 4:1, which makes indeed harder finding a real offset for the kick thingy, like this (Scale unchanged)

I can time with 25%, I personnally don't see the point with timing at 5%. It will end up totally distorted and impossible to time. >_>

You can ask help to better timers if you can't really tell what is the timing, you know !

Adding the DT speed is okay imo, and maybe re-design the speed scaling as it can get confusing ? :V
yes you really spoke the point. 25% is enough for timer, 5% is way too long(extended) and can't really get real offest easily.

I like FL studio btw X3 But I can only use Cubase well. Need time to learn
Miya
2,690 posts
Joined June 2011
Topic Starter
Miya

peppy wrote:

Unless you have studied the algorithm used for slowing the samples and are familiar with the sample source (ie. the instrument or patch being used), this is an invalid point.

If you want lower than 25%, use a sound editor and time it yourself. This feature will never be implemented.
/me sad. Okay ;_;
Aqo
2,710 posts
Joined April 2010
Aqo
So we're forced to slow songs down in Audacity and then translate editing on that to the non-slowed song to get speeds below 25%? kinda not seeing the point of this. Is it really that hard for the program to support an extra layer of the same algorithm...
Sakura
osu! Alumni
7,979 posts
Joined March 2010
Sakura
If lower than 25% speed is never happening then the lines at the left side of 25% should be removed to make more sense.
awp
osu! Alumni
11,869 posts
Here since the beginning
awp
25% is already kind of difficult to use. Handy for finding an offset if the percussion is especially pronounced, sure, but always finalize your timing at 100% playback.

Alternatives for finding the offset would be to open the song in software that provides a visual representation of the audio and check the offset of the desired peak (I do not recommend doing this though, it seems like it's harder)
mm201
osu! Alumni
4,495 posts
Joined August 2008
mm201
Integrate Paulstretch
peppy
19,316 posts
Here since the beginning
peppy

Aqo wrote:

So we're forced to slow songs down in Audacity and then translate editing on that to the non-slowed song to get speeds below 25%? kinda not seeing the point of this. Is it really that hard for the program to support an extra layer of the same algorithm...
Read my post again. It has nothing to do with the algorithm used.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 24