plz use the lossless to get the audio... you may need to convert down to lossy 320kbps OGG max Quality for eof and then in Wwise use 8 or higher conversion not 4 which is standard... so the end result is bigger and better on nice speakers...

trust me this Matters...

 

Example:

http://wikisend.com/download/306992/GOJIRA - Born In Winter.flac

the waveform is so much cleaner...

USE OGG 320 or MP3 320 / FLAC

Not gonna happen. At least not with me. I get my mp3s where I can -- most I rip myself from my own CDs, so I usually rip them at a pretty high quality level. But they're going to get stepped down by EOF anyway, since it doesn't go higher than 256.

 

And considering the quality of Rocksmith's modelization, I just can't see why it'd be worth the bother.

 

I usually set wwise to 6. It's a decent compromise. There's no point in going to 8.

I hadn't really thought about it for the Wwise conversion. I mean, sound wise the ones I have created sounded good but I guess I never tried to compare. Except for the few songs I have purchased online all my audio is at 320 for mp3, and I CAN hear the difference between that and what's on the CD. Mostly I notice wierd pops and squeaks on mp3. I will be listening in my car and I probably look like a curious dog when I hear those things. I guess I will try the higher Wwise setting.

I'm holding out for the vinyl version of Rocksmith.

 

I've got to remember to switch my turntable back from 45 rpm though. No way I can play that fast.

It's no big deal for me to add another OGG quality to EOF's MP3 conversion dialog. A 320kbps option (this is just an estimate, the quality level is passed to the command line OGG encoder as the highest quality value of 10, which can result in the audio being at a higher bitrate than 320kbps) will be in the next hotfix.

Does it really matter what .ogg file EOF produces? I mean, the audio used by the game is made by Wwise, you're only using EOF to sync notes. Or is there something I'm missing?

If you downgrade it from 320 to 256 during the EoF conversion, then you try to upscale it ( the file you convert with Wwise is the file you are saving in EoF. ) that would kind of be like recording a DVD to vhs and then burning a DVD from the vhs you just made. It doesn't regain the quality. That being said I'm not sure what quality an ogg file is as compared to an mp3 or even for sure what an ogg file is exactly. I just know that a wav file gets created and that's the one used for the Wwise conversion.

Wwise and MP3 are both lossy formats, but OGG is a newer format so it may work better in some cases. Otherwise they're probably similar enough to be interhcangeable except that more devices natively support mp3 (ie. TVs or CD players that can play audio files from a flash drive).

I hadn't really thought about it for the Wwise conversion. I mean, sound wise the ones I have created sounded good but I guess I never tried to compare. Except for the few songs I have purchased online all my audio is at 320 for mp3, and I CAN hear the difference between that and what's on the CD. Mostly I notice wierd pops and squeaks on mp3. I will be listening in my car and I probably look like a curious dog when I hear those things. I guess I will try the higher Wwise setting.

I'd say if you get artifacts, your encoder is broken. What're you using?

 

Double-blind tests have conclusively proven that you cannot hear the difference between lossless and well-encoded mp3. 

MP3 is not a lossy format but OGG is. A MP3 above ~200Kb/s is good enough so using OGG (which is a lossless format) at 256Kb/s is good enough and allow you to limit the disk space used. Don't know about wwise quality level parameters but using 7 is fine enough (can't ear any difference) but definitely not uses 4.

 

For those who hear a difference between CD (equivalent to a MP3 at approx. 280kb/s depending on the length of the songs) and 320kb/s MP3, take some time to do a real test and you will found out that the difference is not coming from the original file you're listening to but other components.

Mp3s were developed back when the typical computer had a 1 GB hard drive....

 

The difference between vinyl/analog and digital is more audible, but the difference between CDs and Mp3s? I doubt many people can truly hear the difference. Especially people who've spent much of the youth with earbuds permanently shoved into their ears.

 

The real change in music came with digital mixing -- take a look at the waveform from pretty much any song from the 1970s and earlier. There's usually a huge range in dynamics. Then look at a song from the late 90s/2000s -- they're usually so normalized that there's no dynamics left at all. It's just a wall of sound.

MP3 is not a lossy format but OGG is. A MP3 above ~200Kb/s is good enough so using OGG (which is a lossless format) at 256Kb/s is good enough and allow you to limit the disk space used. Don't know about wwise quality level parameters but using 7 is fine enough (can't ear any difference) but definitely not uses 4. For those who hear a difference between CD (equivalent to a MP3 at approx. 280kb/s depending on the length of the songs) and 320kb/s MP3, take some time to do a real test and you will found out that the difference is not coming from the original file you're listening to but other components.

Not saying it's huge. I just hear things when I'm listening to a disc burned with mp3 versus an audio CD. As far as quality drop CD vs mp3. Well, I look at it this way. If you rip an audio CD to mp3 then burn it back as an audio CD you will have room for 3 more songs on that disc, than you would if you had just copied the audio. But 98% of then time it doesn't matter. As I said I ripped all my cds at 320 then the few I bought online were at 256,, so I guess 256 is the standard. You can't upscale, the data is not there, that was my point.

Sure you can't upscale but if you hear a difference between a CD and the rip MP3 of the CD, you can't hear any difference, it's the exact same file and burning the cd back from the ripped MP3 will still be the exact same file. if you hear a difference, it's not coming from the file but other components in the middle.

Ok, we got off topic there and I think the point was lost. What I'm saying is, are we making a high quality conversion of a file that it of medium quality to begin with ? I will experiment with some different things and see what I find. For example, can I import into EoF directly from an audio cd, or just from an mp3. What settings are not just spinning our tires because it looks cool. I will mess with it and see. And if you can get a higher import setting on EoF for the next hotfix that would be great.

Part of what i was trying to say is that a higher OGG bitrate than 256 is useless since you won't hear the difference. If EOF can import directly from the CD (which is most of the time a WAV at 260-280Kb/s) using the 256kb/s already available in EOF is enough.

We also have to keep in mind that the higher bitrate the bigger file you'll get in the end for a variation almost inaudible so using a higher bitrate than 256 is useless in many case.

 

Don't know exactly what are the difference between each quality settings in wwise but getting too high is the same problem as ogg conversion in EOF, too high will make no audible difference and a bigger file. Listening to a file is not a test, you need to compare the information (looking at the waveform could be one but spotting a difference is hard) and minimize the impact of other components (the worst one being your ears!). not sure taking too much time investigating this worth the information you'll get in the end.

Well, at this point my curiosity is peaked. So I will look into it further. If nothing else I will have solid info instead of the seat of my pants feeling that anything above a certain point is useless.

I'm more concerned with people putting up completed customs in the first place. Some of the customs I've looked at lately have been a complete mess, to put it politely. Not to mention the one that caused Rocksmith's tone to crash on me last night.

MP3 is not a lossy format but OGG is.

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Lossy means that there is at least some data loss during the encoding process. There are actual lossless audio formats like FLAC, otherwise lossless would be a WAV rip of a CD. The concept applies to other data types. JPEG, for example, is considered a lossy format because it discards picture data to make the picture smaller, whereas BMP stores uncompressed color data for every pixel. Compression formats used for data storage (ZIP, RAR, etc.) are lossless otherwise the files within would be corrupted, defeating the purpose.Moving back toward being on topic, I don't think normal people will be able to tell the difference between 256Kbps OGG and 320Kbps OGG, or MP3 format at either of those bitrates, but since the audio is being transcoded into Wwise format, starting with a higher quality audio file gives you a better chance of ending with a higher quality file.

What kind of format is WWise using anyway? Is it using a psychoacoustic model as well? Or is it just mp3 wrapped in a different file format? Does anyone know?

 

And raynebc is of course entirely correct in that MP33 isn't lossless. Given a proper encoder, it's indistinguishable from FLAC if the bitrate is high enough because the information dropped is info that your brain can't handle anyway. One example is a very quiet tone after a loud pop - you'd hear it but your brain wouldn't do anything with that info (this is called auditory masking), it'd be filtered out. MP3 and similar formats are using a very complicated psychoacoustic model to determine what information is superfluous and what isn't. I personally encode with 192 kbit/s because I never heard a difference between that and higher bitrates. I'm using LAME exclusively because it's the best encoder there is. Right?

Ok,, well I experimented a bit. At the 4 quality conversion it is 64k per channel, which equals 128 for a bit rate. At the 8 quality setting it is 128k per channel. At 9 quality it is 160k per channel. The wave that's in the EoF file is 1400k, but was copied over at 256. So, common sense tells me that anything beyond an 8 quality setting is not going to make it any better,, just bigger. A song I used as a test when converted at 4 is 3.39 MB as a WEM, at quality setting 8 it is 6.54 MB and at quality setting of 9 it is 8.18 MB, which is nearly the same size as the MP3 I used for it, which was ripped at 320K. My conclusion, 8 should be the highest conversion quality setting needed, after that your just taking up space. Assuming that an Mp3 and a wem file are similar in quality at given bitrate. If 194k is considered near cd quality for an MP3 then once we get to 256 I should be pretty darn good. And since mine are ripped at 320k my source is slightly better than what it becomes during the initial import anyway. I hope this helps clear some of this up. I will be using a quality setting of 8 for my conversion from now on.

Conceivably, you don't have to use EOF's wav file to make the wem. You should be able to rip to a 48k .wav file instead of an mp3. Use an audio editor to add the leading silence. Convert that as an .mp3 (or directly as an .ogg) to use with EOF. But instead of using EOF's resulting .wav to create the .wem, use your own - you could set it as high as you like in that case.

 

One question, however, is how will Rocksmith respond to larger files? What are the typical resolutions of the official DLC?

Well, based purely on the file size. I would say, not very good. Lol.

I'll add some information just in case :

 

Official DLC are around 3 to 5 Mb.

 

WAV ripped directly from a CD and converted in MP3 gives me a bitrate around 180 to 200kb/s to get the same quality of information in the end.

 

A convertion to 192kbp/s ogg seems the best compromise here and it would be a quality settings of 6 in wwise (96k/channel).

 

With this you got a CD quality sounds which is considered to be superior to what the human can actually ear.

 

For more detail about human perception versus quality

Now that I just ordered Turtle Beach Sevens I am more interested in this topic

Conceivably, you don't have to use EOF's wav file to make the wem. You should be able to rip to a 48k .wav file instead of an mp3. Use an audio editor to add the leading silence. Convert that as an .mp3 (or directly as an .ogg) to use with EOF. But instead of using EOF's resulting .wav to create the .wem, use your own - you could set it as high as you like in that case.

 

That's what I do.  Open the mp3 up in Audacity, add leading silence and export a .wav to bring into EOF and an .ogg to bring into Wwise.

 

That said, maybe it's because I play through whatever headphones I can find or the years of listening to old blues and old time recordings that sound like they were recorded to wax cylinder, but I'm no audiophile and I think this is a non-issue.  I haven't downloaded a custom yet that I thought had a bad sounding recording.