all tracks are at 128. what if I convert them to another format with a higher bitrate? what happens then?
NWN Complete OST (not just the cd tracks) High quality
Débuté par
Dark_Ansem
, mai 21 2013 07:19
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 05:09
_six
-
- Members
- 919 messages
Then you get essentially 16 bit tracks with a higher filesize.
Here's an analogy to illustrate. Lets say I have a set of data that goes
ABCDEFGHIJK
If I sample that at half the frequency I get:
A C E G I K
If I then double the bit rate of -that-, since the only data I have to work with is the ACEGIK values, I might end up with this...
AACCEEGGIIKK
Here's an analogy to illustrate. Lets say I have a set of data that goes
ABCDEFGHIJK
If I sample that at half the frequency I get:
A C E G I K
If I then double the bit rate of -that-, since the only data I have to work with is the ACEGIK values, I might end up with this...
AACCEEGGIIKK
#28
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 07:57
Dark_Ansem
-
- Members
- 638 messages
as long as I do not cause a drop in quality!
#29
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 09:42
Empyre65
-
- Members
- 374 messages
The point is that increasing the bit rate will not increase the quality, but it will increase the file size, uselessly.
#30
Posté 28 mai 2013 - 09:48
Malagant
-
- Members
- 221 messages
Edit: The TV thing was uninportant.
Anyway, as Six said... encoding to a "better" file format when your base is already compressed does no good. It's like when people take some mp3s and encode them as FLAC so that the downloader is deceived into thinking they are getting a lossless file. They're not; they are getting a highly compressed file that hasn't lost anything more.
Anyway, as Six said... encoding to a "better" file format when your base is already compressed does no good. It's like when people take some mp3s and encode them as FLAC so that the downloader is deceived into thinking they are getting a lossless file. They're not; they are getting a highly compressed file that hasn't lost anything more.
Modifié par Malagant, 28 mai 2013 - 11:34 .
#31
Posté 29 mai 2013 - 11:00
Tarot Redhand
-
- Members
- 2 687 messages
As someone asked about the difference between BMU files and MP3 files I did a little experiment. I took a short mp3 file and used mp3tobmu on it, putting the resultant bmu file in the same directory as the mp3 file. I then compared the file sizes and noted that there was only an 8 byte difference. In order to discover what these 8 bytes were and where they are distributed within the bmu file, I then used winmerge to compare the 2 files. The result was somewhat surprising to say the least. The only difference is that mp3tobmu inserts those 8 bytes at the very beginning of the file and changes the extension to .bmu. The actual value of those 8 bytes equates to the text "BMU V1.0". And that's it.
TR
TR
Modifié par Tarot Redhand, 29 mai 2013 - 11:02 .
#32
Posté 29 mai 2013 - 11:53
Empyre65
-
- Members
- 374 messages
Good detective work, Tarot. Now, what happens if you put an MP3 with the "wrong" format (different bit rate, etc.) into mp3tobmu?
#33
Posté 30 mai 2013 - 12:14
Tarot Redhand
-
- Members
- 2 687 messages
First it warns you and then if you insist it will do what I said earlier.
TR
TR
#34
Posté 30 mai 2013 - 09:10
Dark_Ansem
-
- Members
- 638 messages
so mp3tobmu is not really necessary if one wants to convert from bmu to mp3?
#35
Posté 30 mai 2013 - 09:31
Tarot Redhand
-
- Members
- 2 687 messages
That depends. Strictly speaking, no - not if you've got access to something like a hex editor to insert that bit of text that I mentioned. On the other hand if you still want to know for sure that the resulting bmu will work in nwn (mp3 according to mp3tobmu needs to be in mono not stereo for example) then mp3tobmu is still useful.
TR
TR
