There has been a recent spike in audio related disqualifications due to a group of people(partly including me)checking qualified and providing better audios for people using wrongly encoded audios.
Currently rc already has something about this but it hasn't stopped maps with wrongly encoded audios from slipping into the ranked section. I think the main problem is that there aren't actually examples for audios re-encoded to a higher bitrate.
This should really be enforced as a rule instead of a guideline.
I should also address that currently the cutoff for 128kbps and 192kbps in the current rc isn't exactly accurate either.
16KHz cutoff for 128kbps audio isn't exactly accurate and should be on average around 17KHz instead.
18KHz cutoff for 192kbps isn't accurate either and should be on average around 19KHz instead.
This should probably have something done about it as well.
Currently rc already has something about this but it hasn't stopped maps with wrongly encoded audios from slipping into the ranked section. I think the main problem is that there aren't actually examples for audios re-encoded to a higher bitrate.
Ranking Criteria wrote:
The audio file of a song should not be re-encoded to a bit rate higher than its source file. Re-encoding files like this results in unnecessarily large file sizes.
This should really be enforced as a rule instead of a guideline.
I should also address that currently the cutoff for 128kbps and 192kbps in the current rc isn't exactly accurate either.
16KHz cutoff for 128kbps audio isn't exactly accurate and should be on average around 17KHz instead.
18KHz cutoff for 192kbps isn't accurate either and should be on average around 19KHz instead.
Ikikaera wrote:
Oh btw one thing that needs to be added is a line about using CBR over VBR/ABR.
Afaik the latter 2 can cause delay and other weird issues, which makes it a bit weird that it isn't mentioned in the RC yet.
This should probably have something done about it as well.