Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2004-02-22 at 12:22:47
I am going to be submitting lots of sounds pretty soon, so I want your opinions of compressing. On one hand, compressing WILL save you a lot of space, but the quality will not be impressive. On the other hand, good quality will be pleasant to hear, but unfortunately, bigger size on maps... So based on this poll, that is how I'm going to submit sounds from now on.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2004-02-22 at 12:46:54
Yes, compress it. No one uses big sounds anyways. Make it 43kb/sec
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2004-02-22 at 13:21:33
QUOTE(Yoshi da Sniper @ Feb 22 2004, 12:46 PM)
Yes, compress it. No one uses big sounds anyways. Make it 43kb/sec
If only 43kb per second was possible... Or if it is, the quality would be absolutely horrible. The best rate I have currently now is 8kbs per second using Windows Recorder. You would be surprised at how many maps use the original unedited wavs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2004-02-22 at 18:10:14
I say compress them.
I hate having to wait 10 hours just to download a map on B.Net because it has 1 second/s worth the sound. [/exageration]
As for the quality... I have bad ears, I can't tell the difference
I'm so lucky!
I hate having to wait 10 hours just to download a map on B.Net because it has 1 second/s worth the sound. [/exageration]
As for the quality... I have bad ears, I can't tell the difference
I'm so lucky!Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2004-02-22 at 18:23:57
Here is an example. The gunfire is clearly heard in the first, but muffled in the edited one. However, one may notice that the edited one is twice as small as the original. Also, tell me what kind of sounds you want. I can't make a promise, but I can try.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ent on 2004-02-23 at 02:18:07
compress it i say.. im not really using lots of sounds but smaller map size is always great..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tazzy on 2004-02-23 at 03:56:44
Compress it, Most people dont mind what quality it is aslong they can still hear it. The test sounds you ziped, i would not mind the compressed. You can still hear it which is good.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2004-02-23 at 07:32:12
Size comparisons:
ORGINAL: 80.1kb
COMPRESSED: 29.1kb
YOSHI'S COMPRESSION: 80.1kb
Wait a sec. Thats because I bring it higher to 16 bit. Your other 2 sounds will not compress in a map, but mine will. Heres how much it compresses in mine:
Test map = 25kb
Map after sound import = 48kb
48 - 25 = 23kb
My compression method (using staredit) takes up the least space, and gives you good quaility. Sound attached.
You've all been owned
ORGINAL: 80.1kb
COMPRESSED: 29.1kb
YOSHI'S COMPRESSION: 80.1kb
Wait a sec. Thats because I bring it higher to 16 bit. Your other 2 sounds will not compress in a map, but mine will. Heres how much it compresses in mine:
Test map = 25kb
Map after sound import = 48kb
48 - 25 = 23kb
My compression method (using staredit) takes up the least space, and gives you good quaility. Sound attached.
You've all been owned
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2004-02-25 at 01:50:50
but yours is twice as big as the original one 
I don't seem to understand 
EDIT: Added a WHOLE BUNCH OF WAVS! ENJOY!
I don't seem to understand EDIT: Added a WHOLE BUNCH OF WAVS! ENJOY!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2004-02-25 at 08:20:55
The sound without the map is bigger, but inside the map (Staredit compresses 16 bit) it is compressed, thus taking up LESS space.
Thank you for your contributions
Thank you for your contributions
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Illusion on 2004-03-01 at 21:43:44
I would go through the trouble of dling a mpq version of a great map. if your map is great and popular make a mpq version for staredit u fools.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yoshi da Sniper on 2004-03-01 at 21:46:06
The thing is, most people dont know how to. I was the first to accually do it