Is it really necessary to have the 192kps limit? It's 2015, computer storage space is not at a premium.
IIRC osu is not a music hosting service, which is a major reasoning for the hard 192 kbps limit.B1rd wrote:
Is it really necessary to have the 192kps limit? It's 2015, computer storage space is not at a premium.
that's the problem. Many of the rips are wrong and have been re-encoded up to 128 kbps mp3.Wafu wrote:
Well... increasing the bottom limit is not really a good idea. Because, as you maybe know, for example visual novels use sometimes .wav files which are obviously lossless quality, but on the other hand, many of them use 128kbps .ogg files (for example some original うみねこのなく頃に songs), which would be then unrankable. Your ear will recognize difference between 128kbps and lossless, but I think you won't recognize 128kbps and 256kbps unless the encode/rip was wrong.
How about instead of a "new rule" you locate a better mp3 for maps before they make it into ranked? Or better yet, before they get into qualified. I''ve done it several times, where the mp3 used was all scratchy and garbage because they were 64kbps upscales which were uploaded to youtube and ripped and then reconverted to 192kbps yet again. Disqualification can and will happen if something sounds like complete arse and you have something better. It's a very simple concept.Wafu wrote:
It's easy to tell difference between 128 and 256, but that depends on a song. High amount of information is not important when the sounds the song is composed with sounds which are not altered by using bitrate of 128. My point was that why the lowest rankable bitrate should be increased, when some songs are done so they don't need more than 128kbps (i.e. poor chiptune or sometimes poor chiptune). You most likely don't recognize 128 vs 256 when the rip is well made. Any distortion signs should be unrankable and these might be caused by wrong encode (most likely) or low bitrate, but that happens mostly only if it's increased to 128kbps from lower volume. Thus the rule should be something like Make sure mp3 is highest quality available unless the bitrate is higher than *new upper limit*. If you re-encoded the mp3, make sure the previous bitrate was not lower than 128kbps and is not distorted.
It wasn't completely aimed at you nor was it meant to sound overly negative, I just have a habit of doing that. whoopsWafu wrote:
I did not mean to make a new rule. I just suggested it as if the rule really must be changed, but I can 100% agree with Lach.
The song's audio file must be of reasonable quality. Reasonable quality is defined as the actual audio bitrate of a beatmap's audio file being no lower than 128kbps and no higher than 192kbps. Transcoded audio files of a lower actual quality than what their bitrate implies is not allowed. If you are having trouble acquiring an appropriate audio file, contact one of the more audio-savvy BN; they will be more than happy t`o help find an mp3 for you.
Doesnt change the fact that BNs regularly overlook this rule when ranking a map and QATs rarely DQ maps with mp3s that break this rule unless it is pointed out to them.Ephemeral wrote:
Provisions for this already exist within the Ranking Criteria, as stated previously.
The only change to come out of this thread is that the provision is changed to reflect actual audio bitrate, not just container bitrate. This would alleviate issues with transcodes being of technically correct container bitrate, but incorrect audio bitrate.The song's audio file must be of reasonable quality. Reasonable quality is defined as the actual audio bitrate of a beatmap's audio file being no lower than 128kbps and no higher than 192kbps. Transcoded audio files of a lower actual quality than what their bitrate implies is not allowed. If you are having trouble acquiring an appropriate audio file, contact one of the more audio-savvy BN; they will be more than happy t`o help find an mp3 for you.
Something similar would be much more definite over RC's version of "reasonable quality" imo.ziin wrote:
BNs can check for cutoffs below 15k before they bubble.
I'm a bit worried thatsukiNathan wrote:
Something similar would be much more definite over RC's version of "reasonable quality" imo.ziin wrote:
BNs can check for cutoffs below 15k before they bubble.