A little worry about the audio format rule

Use OGG or FLAC for sounds. They are much more compressed formats without any (noticable) quality loss. There are several programs to convert to one of these formats, such as Audacity.

I see a danger here that it forces people to re-encode a lossy source to ogg.

If they do to flac - no problem, but it would bloat up unnecessary the file. If they convert for example mp3 to ogg because of that rule - what is the gain?
You pay that with quality if you re-encode lossy formats.
So: Why not accepting for example a mp3 sound, if there is no lossless sound for it available to convert it to your wished ogg format?

Another rule should be that the ogg file has at least 128 kbit (exception may be if the sound isnt available in this quality or higher).

I think having the sound as MP3 might be also fine in my eyes. What do others think?

If it's the only source available, sure. I also don't think the bitrate is as big a deal as long as it sounds fine and can't be found in a better format.b Though I've often converted MP3 sources to OGG and heard no noticeable loss, so it's still worth trying.

I've converted MP3s to FLAC/OGG and I, too, have not notice any difference in sound quality. My biggest concern with using MP3s is the increase in the size of the file.

There is a loss. thats a fact.

Of course not by mp3 -> flac, because flac is lossless. But doesnt make much sense bloating a lossy source into a flac.
But thats what I would do because of this rule if I would submit something to avoid converting lossy to lossy.

Lossy to lossy - 2 codecs worked on the file with different encoding mechanics.
Also in general is double lossy compression a lossy process. Dont do that.

And it doesnt make sense to do that. I mean again: Whats the gain? GZDoom accepts most audio formats anyway. Why converting then lossy to lossy? That would make only sense if for example GZDoom doesnt support mp3 or any other audio format than ogg. But thats not the case. So I dont see the gain.

And for lossy formats : Filesize depends on your own setting. Using a lower bitrate of course the file is smaller, but the quality worse. codec is only difference how much worse at same bitrate.

but lossy to lossy conversion isnt recommended and shouldnt be done just for the sake of a rule.

And this shows that my worry was right.

Because .ogg is small.

I don't understand why FLAC is allowed honestly. But .ogg is notably smaller than .mp3.

In cases where most sounds are heard no more than seconds at a time, quality loses out to size in matter of importance. Admitedly, most people won't notice the quality drop. I can, but it's not that big of the deal. It's not exactly listening music to me .

But what is important is the size of the files. FLAC is lossless, but is frickin' massive. MP3 is lossy, and while some more quality is lost in conversion, the loss doesn't outweigh the size gain.

If anything, I vouch to remove the FLAC rule than go for adding MP3.

Randy has noted before that for short duration sounds, FLAC can often result in smaller files than OGG. It depends on the compression level.

OGG Vorbis is smaller than MP3, less destructively lossy to certain kinds of sound, and doesn't have the decoding delay. It's also supported by any reasonably competent audio editor, so there's really no reason not to use it other than stubbornness.

I don't understand why FLAC is allowed honestly. But .ogg is notably smaller than .mp3.

first one is FLAC @ compression level 8
2nd one is mp3 @ 64 kbit
3rd one is ogg @ 500 kbit

You see the point?


Saying ogg is smaller is wrong. It needs less bitrate for same quality than mp3 due to its better efficiency - and thats the only thing what differs codecs beside of lossy vs lossless codecs. But the better efficiency is not given if you re-encode from an previous and even other lossy format. Then its more sense to stay with the same format.

de-m-on wrote: 2nd one is mp3 @ 64 kbit
3rd one is ogg @ 500 kbit

It's true! Using a significantly higher bitrate does not skew the size result in the slightest. No sir. Not at all.

yes and?

If you use the same bitrates for both you end of course up with same file sizes

I said that, because of the "ogg is smaller arguments" instead of saying its more efficient at same bitrate (but thats based on lossless sources the case and not reencoding a mp3 to ogg)