Hello! Your audio is currently encoded at 192kb/s while possessing the qualities of a lower quality one 128kb/s which violates the RC rules: "...not be encoded upwards from a lower bitrate." Converted to 128kbps showed with this cap for audio, which seems to be the case for this mapHello! Your audio is currently encoded at 192kb/s while possessing the qualities of a lower quality one 128kb/s which violates the RC rules: "...not be encoded upwards from a lower bitrate." Converted to 128kbps showed with this cap for audio, which seems to be the case for this mapHello! Your audio is currently encoded at 192kb/s while possessing the qualities of a lower quality one 128kb/s which violates the RC rules: "...not be encoded upwards from a lower bitrate." Converted to 128kbps showed with this cap for audio, which seems to be the case for this mapHello! Your audio is currently encoded at 192kb/s while possessing the qualities of a lower quality one 128kb/s which violates the RC rules: "...not be encoded upwards from a lower bitrate." Converted to 128kbps showed with this cap for audio, which seems to be the case for this mapHello! Your audio is currently encoded at 192kb/s while possessing the qualities of a lower quality one 128kb/s which violates the RC rules: "...not be encoded upwards from a lower bitrate." Converted to 128kbps showed with this cap for audio, which seems to be the case for this map
Hello! Your audio is currently encoded at 192kb/s while possessing the qualities of a lower quality one 128kb/s which violates the RC rules: "...not be encoded upwards from a lower bitrate." Converted to 128kbps showed with this cap for audio, which seems to be the case for this map: https://imgur.com/a/6vxrXA6
I've sourced FLAC and encoded it to mp3 192kb/s (or ogg q6) using audacity:
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1p2C9tEPVJtr7fR8UUiGbo-MM4T7rdaRG (offset is same)
Also a spectrogram if you'd like to see the differences:
https://imgur.com/a/UNHf7Wd
?, in general, what you discussed earlier, riffy was right about the fact that the mp3 is overencoded. How do you even know what mp3 was used from the beginning (as mapper said 320kb/s but in fact its 128kb/s), why you should believe at all. All this does not negate the fact that map has overencoded mp3.
^converted to 128kbps showed with this cap for audio, which seems to be the case for this map: https://imgur.com/a/6vxrXA6
i just think i'll go with the higher quality mp3 defree posted, there is no reason to let that one if there's better quality available
where did you get the audio from? based on the spectrogram thing it seems closer to a 128 kpbs audio rather than a 192 kbps one.
i converted your audio to a 128kbps and it seems/sounds alright, about as good as it did before even? https://riffy.s-ul.eu/dce8ZnkF.mp3
i don't understand what would be the difference if both audio are 128kbps
for real tho i've joined both songs using audacity and they had a 320 kbps originally
the 128 mp3 you gave actually loses some detail in higher frequencies so i prefer to just keep that one
IsomirDiAngelo: "For your information, there's a lot more to english rock mappers than people think."
Donkey: "Example?"
IsomirDiAngelo: "Example? Ok, um. English rock mappers are like onions!"
IsomirDiAngelo: "Look, I'm not the one with the problem, okay? It's the world that seems to have a problem with me."
IsomirDiAngelo: "They judge me before they even know me. That's why I'm better off alone."
04:30:837 (4,1) - stacking these two would kill any movement and highlight the pause in the vocals much nicer.
the white combo colour is way too bright, it's just very uncomfortable to look at especially if you dim the bg. consider darkening it?
your bg pic isn't even a FHD resolution, we can compress it, it seems
https://riffy.s-ul.eu/Iro5rbAw.jpg