Size will be too big then
We have a max filesize, and mp3 can easily break it
I disagree due to this
We have a max filesize, and mp3 can easily break it
I disagree due to this
forum
[Rule] Maps need a good mp3 to be ranked
posted
Total Posts
47
Yeah, I made a mania 320 kbps map, it's like 13 MB big lol
Kodora
Topic Starter
While 320kbps may be out of the question due to filesize (it's not even that big tho lol), properly encoded 192kbps is still pretty good, small in file size and should be enforced on ranked maps.
If you have hundreds of songs 13mb files can easily take up way more than needed. That's not including a bg and video.hhjkl wrote:
(it's not even that big tho lol)
More then 10 is only for video right?Kodora wrote:
30 mb mp3s for tv size songs? pleasebaraatje123 wrote:
We have a max filesize, and mp3 can easily break it
Topic Starter
Gumpyyy wrote:
If you have hundreds of songs 13mb files can easily take up way more than needed. That's not including a bg and video.hhjkl wrote:
(it's not even that big tho lol)
hhjkl wrote:
properly encoded 192kbps is still pretty good, small in file size and should be enforced on ranked maps.
is only for video and SBbaraatje123 wrote:
More then 10 is only for video right?
3 min map filesize, average is 5MB
if including vidoe and SB it can 20MB
Wait
Shouldn't this be posted in Ranking Criteria Forum?
If so, can this be moved and changed according o the format of that forum
Or someone could create a new thread there and then this one should be marked invalid (as it's a rankablilty issue)
Shouldn't this be posted in Ranking Criteria Forum?
If so, can this be moved and changed according o the format of that forum
Or someone could create a new thread there and then this one should be marked invalid (as it's a rankablilty issue)
From the ranking criteria,hhjkl wrote:
Do you think it would be a good idea to disqualify maps with low quality mp3s?
The song's audio file must be of reasonable quality. Try and source mp3 files yourself; ripping them from a streaming video site often results in low quality audio with high file sizes. The bitrate of a beatmap's audio file must be no lower than 128kbps and no higher than 192kbps. If you are having trouble acquiring an appropriate audio file, contact one of the more audio-savvy BN; they will be more than happy to help find an mp3 for you.
So yes, if the audio quality is very poor we will disqualify a mapset accordingly. 128kbps is a fine minimum in my eyes; however since you would like to see a 192 minimum I shall move this to the correct subforum where you can appropriately direct your efforts.In most cases, really bad sounding mp3s are actually bad from the source (a bad rip most usually). It has rarely something to do with the bitrate itself.
There are very few songs which actually sound bad as 192kbps, due to the bitrate itself.
There are very few songs which actually sound bad as 192kbps, due to the bitrate itself.
Top left: source ogg
Top right: 128 kbps mp3 from source ogg
Bottom left: beatmap audio
Bottom right: youtube video audio Note the names are virtually the same.
I can almost guarantee that the source (best quality I could find was the ogg submitted to the contest) was not used. Instead the 96 kbps mp4 audio stream from the video was used and encoded to 128 kbps resulting in the cutoff at 15kHz (which is expected of an mp3 at 96kHz).
It would be good to use a spectrum analyzer during the qualification process to confirm that the cutoff is above 16kHz (128 kbps mp3). The upper limit would be 19kHz for 192 kbps, but that's not important for obvious reasons. This is supposed to come out during modding, but clearly this is getting missed as it is a tedious process such as checking for metadata consistency prior to automation via AIMod and AIBat. It could be automated, but I sincerely doubt that anyone has the time or energy to figure something like this out. I wasn't able to find a simple program to do this automatically without visual inspection.
Topic Starter
Lust wrote:
From the ranking criteria,hhjkl wrote:
Do you think it would be a good idea to disqualify maps with low quality mp3s?The song's audio file must be of reasonable quality. Try and source mp3 files yourself; ripping them from a streaming video site often results in low quality audio with high file sizes. The bitrate of a beatmap's audio file must be no lower than 128kbps and no higher than 192kbps. If you are having trouble acquiring an appropriate audio file, contact one of the more audio-savvy BN; they will be more than happy to help find an mp3 for you.So yes, if the audio quality is very poor we will disqualify a mapset accordingly. 128kbps is a fine minimum in my eyes; however since you would like to see a 192 minimum I shall move this to the correct subforum where you can appropriately direct your efforts.
Ok.. I think a better alternative to straight up making people use 192kbps would be for BNs and QATs to strictly enforce the use of properly encoded mp3s.
You can just simply make 64kbps mp3 file into 192kbp file (and of course the quality still sucks).
Rule like this (stating that the mp3 should be at least 192kbps) wont make anything better...
I honestly had a moment where i had to encode my 96kbps mp3(which was all i had) to 128kbps mp3 because of the rule. (seems like nobody noticed it, LOL, and YES it is ranked)and you know this is kinda stupid.
Rule like this (stating that the mp3 should be at least 192kbps) wont make anything better...
I honestly had a moment where i had to encode my 96kbps mp3(which was all i had) to 128kbps mp3 because of the rule. (seems like nobody noticed it, LOL, and YES it is ranked)and you know this is kinda stupid.
Topic Starter
haha5957 wrote:
You can just simply make 64kbps mp3 file into 192kbp file (and of course the quality still sucks).
Rule like this (stating that the mp3 should be at least 192kbps) wont make anything better...
I honestly had a moment where i had to encode my 96kbps mp3(which was all i had) to 128kbps mp3 because of the rule. (seems like nobody noticed it, LOL, and YES it is ranked)and you know this is kinda stupid.
Something like what ziin did could be implemented to auto-detect stuff like this and disallow this from happening.
And that's the main reason i don't play Croatian rhapsody lol
calling it a main reason when that map actually used decent mp3 file.
good job.
good job.
Topic Starter
haha5957 wrote:
calling it a main reason when that map actually used decent mp3 file.
good job.
Still sounds bad anyway B-)
This is already a rule, as per the audio quality clause cited earlier. It is just not being enforced as well as it should be currently.
what made you think the mp3 under 192kbps is not acceptable?
http://puu.sh/h891e/79878eba10.mp3
^the current one i am using.
notice that, this is not about bitrate, but about how you coding it and your source. bitrate means nothing and there is no need for RC change to fit your requirement.
you can replace your own mp3 if you know how to trim it with less than 2ms difference. fun? i did some by my own, but i dont even play these songs after i did replace all file to HQ. its a game, who cares?
listen to your own lossless music instead
http://puu.sh/h891e/79878eba10.mp3
^the current one i am using.
notice that, this is not about bitrate, but about how you coding it and your source. bitrate means nothing and there is no need for RC change to fit your requirement.
you can replace your own mp3 if you know how to trim it with less than 2ms difference. fun? i did some by my own, but i dont even play these songs after i did replace all file to HQ. its a game, who cares?
listen to your own lossless music instead
Topic Starter
I was just a little mad at this map https://osu.ppy.sh/s/248876 and went a little too far without knowing as much as i should have known about audio encoding and bitrate, but i think that people should be more careful when acquiring audio files for their beatmap and the quality of audio files should be more strictly enforced during and before qualification of a map.Shad0w1and wrote:
what made you think the mp3 under 192kbps is not acceptable?
http://puu.sh/h891e/79878eba10.mp3
^the current one i am using.
notice that, this is not about bitrate, but about how you coding it and your source. bitrate means nothing and there is no need for RC change to fit your requirement.
you can replace your own mp3 if you know how to trim it with less than 2ms difference. fun? i did some by my own, but i dont even play these songs after i did replace all file to HQ. its a game, who cares?
listen to your own lossless music instead
haha5957 wrote:
calling it a main reason when that map actually used decent mp3 file.
good job.
I am speechless.
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 right I guess. It's a shame though.
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.
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.
Also you have it backwards. It's easy to tell the difference between 128 and 256. It's hard to tell the difference between 256 and lossless.
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.
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.
Ideally, all tracks should be transcoded from a lossless source, but that's obviously not possible for everything, which is why unless there's a large problem and you can provide something better, leave it alone.
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.
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.
Don't worry, I didn't take offensive, just said it to make people know my opinion is not like like: "Make this rule look like this and that", but it was just "make this rule this and that" in case it really needs change, what it doesn't if we take common sense into consideration and also your argument 
Topic Starter
I've changed the title and I've modified the contents of the post.
BNs and QATs pretty much need to step up their mp3 game.
BNs and QATs pretty much need to step up their mp3 game.
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 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.
I'll make a guide on how to tell container quality for the BNs and QATs later this evening. It's not simple.
Topic Starter
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.
t/320007
I just posted this, hopefully it will help some people. In case anyone knows more than me on the subject, please help! Hopefully BNs can check for cutoffs below 15k before they bubble. If they have questions on it, they can confer with other BNs and QATs or just bring it to light before it's qualified/ranked.
We're not going to be perfect, but I think that there are some major issues with low quality audio being ranked.
I just posted this, hopefully it will help some people. In case anyone knows more than me on the subject, please help! Hopefully BNs can check for cutoffs below 15k before they bubble. If they have questions on it, they can confer with other BNs and QATs or just bring it to light before it's qualified/ranked.
We're not going to be perfect, but I think that there are some major issues with low quality audio being ranked.
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.
1) nobody knows what the heck the cutoff below 15k is without reading an entire page
2) there are reasonable exceptions to the "rule" that 15khz cutoff is unrankable, such as recorded audio.
3) bad encodes could still be audible but not exactly visible.
The problem is that if people start witch hunting frequency cutoffs, it's going to be as awful as metadata discussion. And NOBODY wants that. The audio "modding" side of things should stick to "Here's a better mp3, please replace your current one." and not "Well, as you can see, the frequencies cut off below xxkhz."