Real reason is:
Don't make copyright problems bigger.
320kbps will do more harm on copyright than 192kbps.
Don't make copyright problems bigger.
320kbps will do more harm on copyright than 192kbps.
it's not like this is wrong, but considering this has been discussed with these topics in the past, I'm under the impression there are concerns regarding arbitrary filesize caps with this. And for those arbitrary caps, let me use an allegory: let's think that cap is your house. Mp3 is the furniture. Average TV Size stuff might not be more than a light chair, but epics like TSTMTS would be more like massive shelves. Now, you decide to increase the size of all the furniture because the chairs will be comfier. Seems like it works just fine with the chairs, but suddenly the massive shelf doesn't fit in the house anymore. Whoops.Chanci wrote:
Bigger files and bigger downloads will exist regardless on osu, and I don't think the line needs to be drawn at quality when it doesn't even make that huge of a difference in file size in the first place
Saying that when you proposed to increase the average limitation to 320kbps seems too confusing tho. Because what's the point of actually using 320 besides of being cool when 192, as you mentioned, is perfectly acceptable?Chanci wrote:
If the maximum was 320kbs, nothing would be stopping people from using the good old 192kbs. 192kbs would be considered average, and average is perfectly acceptable.
Nice test, but to be fair, when put side by side like that it's not hard to tell the difference most of the time (well, don't know how it'd go with 192 though), and I have dirt cheap headphones. In any case, more applicable for our situation in osu! would probably be if the test only had the steps 2 and 3abraker wrote:
Chanci, do me a favor and post your results in this thread: community/forums/topics/1074758. Yea I know it's not 192 vs 320, but I can't find a test for that. If there is one, I'll update, for now let's see if people can tell this much apart.
I've come to think whatever peppy said 5 years ago and before not holding up as it used to. That said, I'm totally expecting for Ephemeral to drop by this thread.clayton wrote:
Also, given how this rule was made, I don't think we have authority to change it without the peppy/admin approval anyway
Q: So which level of VBR corresponds to avg. 192k in LAME terms?STCapricorn wrote:
why average?because making the rule use constant instead of average will disallow audio files with average bit rates, even when they're perfectly fine otherwise.
also, constant bit rate files by definition have an average bit rate of exactly its bit rate.