It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionTo all GOG Audiophiles.(49 posts)(49 posts)
(49 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 02, 2018
avatar
djdarko: Thanks for checking it out, both are MJ, the second file is just 2 additional files.

I do the same, lossy on my phone, I do tests like this to try and figure out what format to use precisely for mobile.
avatar
Sarang: Just because I might not be able to hear it doesn't mean I'm going to be a bastard and freeze out the people who can by supporting Lossy instead of Lossless.
Bottom line, I would rather see recordings released that please that crazy small audiophile percentage because if they're pleased EVERYONE is pleased.
Also it's just the principle of the thing for me and losing that complete thing, anything taken out of a complete product and diminished more.
I agree completely, though I don't understand why you replied to me in a defensive way that would suggest otherwise.

avatar
djdarko: ...lossless is more "future proof". So, if the files exist in lossless format, I would absolutely prefer they include them with the GOG bonuses, hell I wish they could get the source files and provide lossless files for all in-game audio as well.
avatar
djdarko: Hi guys, I'm all in favor of lossless audio...
You even quoted the part where I said that I use lossy on my phone specifically. That meant that I use lossless anywhere else.

I posted the audio comparison because I figured this would be a good place to do so. I certainly wasn't trying to sway anyone in favor of lossy, I can't even fathom why someone would try to do that.
Post edited October 02, 2018 by djdarko
Posted October 02, 2018
avatar
evilnancyreagan: I'll remind that simply because the file is appended with .FLAC

it does not guarantee that the audio you will be listening to is lossless xD
avatar
teceem: You could say that about any file type. Why would GOG or the developers be renaming file extensions? Sounds pretty 'fraudulent' to me.

A Flac encoding of an MP3 file is still lossless. Lossless says nothing about the "quality" of the audio. Though I don't see the point of doing such a thing.

yes, a lossless iteration of what was lost--the point of FLAC is to prevent loss, when you source from loss, you defeat the purpose of FLAC

avatar
evilnancyreagan: alll the .FLAC iterations of soundtracks on GOG are simply re-encodings of the audio files distributed with the commercial releases of the games--there is no access to the original source audio.
avatar
teceem: Have you been comparing the uncompressed waveforms with those from inside the games? All of them?
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/update_gogcom_blog_flac_soundtracks/post85

try to keep up
Posted October 02, 2018
avatar
Sarang: Just because I might not be able to hear it doesn't mean I'm going to be a bastard and freeze out the people who can by supporting Lossy instead of Lossless.
Bottom line, I would rather see recordings released that please that crazy small audiophile percentage because if they're pleased EVERYONE is pleased.
Also it's just the principle of the thing for me and losing that complete thing, anything taken out of a complete product and diminished more.
avatar
djdarko: I agree completely, though I don't understand why you replied to me in a defensive way that would suggest otherwise.

avatar
djdarko: Hi guys, I'm all in favor of lossless audio...
avatar
djdarko: You even quoted the part where I said that I use lossy on my phone specifically. That meant that I use lossless anywhere else.

I posted the audio comparison because I figured this would be a good place to do so. I certainly wasn't trying to sway anyone in favor of lossy, I can't even fathom why someone would try to do that.
I guess I get defensive because I want the highest quality possible wherever (good for backup safety in redundancy too) and I remember gamers willing to settle for subpar audio over graphics while I think BOTH are equally important.
Posted October 02, 2018
avatar
boroncarbide: They probably don’t, but that’s what struck me as odd in the first place; even tech illiterate soccer mums insist on more and here you are using Opus. Why would somebody who knows what Opus even is settle for a mere 96 kbps?
So I'm one of the guys who spent hours and hours and hours and hours listening to samples (with a decent selection of headphones including Sennheiser HD650 and AKG K701) & helping the devs tune CELT (the "high bitrate" or "music" half of Opus) before the codec was standardised. We did most of that work at 64 kbps, and later at around 48 kbps for a while. Though we did a bit of it, tuning at 96 kbps (let alone higher) proved rather difficult because that's where it gets good enough to be transparent or so close for most music that you can't really tell. Even when it's not transparent, it's damn hard to tell whether any given tweak actually hurts or helps (and it was challenging enough at 64 kbps).

With that insight, I'd consider 96 kbps Opus a damn smart choice for portable use. I don't know if I ever found a killer sample that I can ABX at 128 kbps, but if they exist, they're really not common. I'd say 128 kbps Opus is a perfect replacement for what used to be 192 kbps VBR or 256 kbps CBR MP3.

These days, I just try to enjoy the music, whatever be the bitrate. Be it with my Sennheiser HD800s or AKG K812s...
Post edited October 02, 2018 by clarry
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionTo all GOG Audiophiles.(49 posts)(49 posts)
(49 posts)