SMR #2: Genius art come

by snout on 28-12-2005, 20:42
Topic: Music
Languages:

Peter Mastijn sent us the second entry to the MRC Scene Music Remake Challenge. From the Total Parody promo, he re-arranged Genius art come, originally composed by Dandan (Danilo Danisi). The remake was made using the OPL4 tracker Realfun, and uses the defeault OPL4 ROM tones combined with 2op and 4op FM tones.

With the MRC Scene Music Remake Challenge you can win an MSX T-Shirt or a chiptune record composed by the Japanese chiptune artist BeepBoy. Find out all about the competition right here. You can send your finished entries in mp3 format (192kbps preferred) to smr@msx.org. Please do include a small description on the equipment you used and how you created the remake. The challenge is opened until February 5th, 23:59 CET.

Relevant link: Genius art come

Comments (30)

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9845)

wolf_'s picture

28-12-2005, 21:06

There're nasty errors in that mp3 .. @ 1:04 for example...

By Meits

Scribe (6185)

Meits's picture

28-12-2005, 21:09

That was not in the mp3 he posted in the forum...

By Abi

Hero (600)

Abi's picture

28-12-2005, 21:15

i really missed DanDan!!! Sad

By Low_Profile

Champion (425)

Low_Profile's picture

28-12-2005, 21:33

i hear tics (no tacs!) too throughout the song. Sad

Sounds really mysterious though Smile (can't say i know the original)

By msd

Paragon (1411)

msd's picture

28-12-2005, 21:46

But more importend.. what's the current status of realfun?

By snout

Ascended (15184)

snout's picture

28-12-2005, 22:02

Update: version in MRC downloads section now available without pops'n'hisses Wink

By Meits

Scribe (6185)

Meits's picture

28-12-2005, 22:28

Snout, really... how did you add those Tongue

By snout

Ascended (15184)

snout's picture

28-12-2005, 22:29

lameenc did while unneccessarily normalizing the whole shebang. Odd, odd....

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

28-12-2005, 23:43

i dont know the original either.. but i like it!!! really cool! its typically dandan... very nice!

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9845)

wolf_'s picture

28-12-2005, 23:48

snout: I guess you know that submitted entry's are not to be normalised/affected in any way? Tongue

By Meits

Scribe (6185)

Meits's picture

29-12-2005, 01:54

actually wolf_ got a point... waves can go crampy around the peaks... Big smile

By poke-1,170

Paragon (1763)

poke-1,170's picture

29-12-2005, 04:02

yeah seems to make annoying ticks when you normalize/ ultramaximize... f*cks it up sometimes

By poke-1,170

Paragon (1763)

poke-1,170's picture

29-12-2005, 06:02

sounds great,again ! full of suspense

By ro

Scribe (4305)

ro's picture

29-12-2005, 07:55

ticks and leeches have nothing to do with normalizing/maximizing (the latter only makes it more harsch if done improperly)
ticks are typically from bad software (bugs?). Digital editing takes its toll.... Bad recording will also result in ticks, hiss, cracks and sometimes pops. (bad cables/connections for example)
so screw that lame encoder, or atleast the editing part Smile

it might, however, be good to "polish" all products to 'ave produced at same levels. all things being equal so to speak.

cheers

By ARTRAG

Enlighted (6464)

ARTRAG's picture

29-12-2005, 09:11

I should really take in again in my hands total parody SadSadSad
the problem is that whitout danilo... no asm trick can compensate his graphic & music

By GhostwriterP

Hero (556)

GhostwriterP's picture

29-12-2005, 12:00

Artrag: You are free to use this version Wink, just not very usefull without a replayer thoughTongue
But maby sometime next year ...

By snout

Ascended (15184)

snout's picture

29-12-2005, 12:36

wolf_: that would mean that I would not even be allowed to play the mp3 on other equipment than yours, in your studio, on the exact same volume levels on which you created the song. Provided no pops'n'hisses occur due to 'ultramaximization' (which is what happened, for some reason lame doesn't like to normalize tracks that have already been normalized to 100% to 100%) a bit of normalization to the same levels of all mp3 entries should do no harm at all... should it?

As for re-encoding the mp3: sorry, they're all going to become the same 192kbps stereo mp3s Tongue

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9845)

wolf_'s picture

29-12-2005, 14:48

No, that's not what I mean. I meant: I deliver a 192kbps mp3, either normalised or not and that's it. Ofcourse I normalise it, but that's mainly because *I* do so, things being normalised or not is the responsibility of the contestant. I dunno what's up with the lame thing, but it's not suggested to re-encode the same mp3 again.. it's like adding additional holes in Swiss cheese.

By poke-1,170

Paragon (1763)

poke-1,170's picture

29-12-2005, 14:51

mmmmm swiss cheese

By Low_Profile

Champion (425)

Low_Profile's picture

29-12-2005, 14:56

I have to agree with wolf_ that re-encoding mp3's is verrrry bad Sad

we might as wel send the wav file through ftp Smile or let us send the mp3 at highest bitrate if you're gonna encode it again anyway Smile

By SaebaMSX

Hero (533)

SaebaMSX's picture

29-12-2005, 15:23

MP3 is not a good option IMHO, using WAV sounds more logical to me. And normalizing the wave is destroying it too. If using MP3 (or other encoders) at least do not normalize it.

I agree with wolf in this point, reencoding is the worst you can do. Tongue

By Meits

Scribe (6185)

Meits's picture

29-12-2005, 15:27

In that case, the musicians could put their own mp3 on own webspace and submit a link in the replies on their entry... The listener can chose his thing then...

The re-encoding of my entry went well... didn't hear any differences... just little pity that my complete ID3 tag went away with it...

By ARTRAG

Enlighted (6464)

ARTRAG's picture

29-12-2005, 15:34

Wav is fine, but I could also encode the music files with my new PCM encoder and let them play on a msx1 with its PSG...
ok just kidding Smile
(almost)

By ARTRAG

Enlighted (6464)

ARTRAG's picture

29-12-2005, 15:36

By ro

Scribe (4305)

ro's picture

30-12-2005, 08:12

normalising will *not*, and I repeat, *not* destroy your audio data perse (only increases volume and therefore also hisses for example). It takes the highest peak from the total waveform and boosts the whole wave to desired level (say 100% which is max) RELATIVE to the highest peak. So when your audio has a peak which is already around -0 DB, it will not increase the overall volume.
Normalising should be one of the LAST steps to process audio with (first you need to compress in order to kill those peaks).
Maximizing is another thing (but looks close to mentioned process); it'll compress the hell out of audio and boost it by x DB (not normalising, thus relative boost but ABSOLUTE boost). to much maximizing will destroy your sweater. (it'll crack and crack some more coz of cut of sines). Wanna hear a BAD maximizing example? "Californication" from the peppers. BAD album, mostly mono too. while that other album "blood, suger, sex, magic" sound much better (less maximizing, more dynamics)

So Maximizing will destroy audio when using too much (flattening peaks, kill dynamics) while Normalizing will only (relative to highest peak) increase volume.
lucky them msx audio waves won't 'ave such peaks as accoustic audio does. (hence the non-dynamic sound of chiptunes)

MP3 is not bad at all, just don't go the low range. 192kHz will do for download's sake! (don't dither please), so I agree with WOLF but also with SNOUT.
You know why a commercial album gets MASTERED, don't ya. well, for the exact reasons; to keep things equal. Having all songs on same volume etc.

Therefor sending WAV files is best, atleast if one person's the mastering engineer. Someone independant I gues....

my, more than, 2 cents on the matter.

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9845)

wolf_'s picture

30-12-2005, 11:31

Mastering would be ok.. it's just that I don't think snout is a qualified mastering engineer Big smile

It's perhaps better to give a handful of instructions to the contestants, to make sure most of the work on the mix/master is done already. Like for example:
1 normalise to 0.0db
2 limit with a treshold of -4db, and make sure it normalises to -1db
3 enhancer (using that 1db headroom)
4 normalise (will only add a minor bit here)
5 mp3/192

But NEVER re-encode the same mp3 again, NEVER! Tongue It's like making a jpg of a jpg .. can't be good..

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9845)

wolf_'s picture

30-12-2005, 11:35

Still.. for the challenge I'd argue that all of this is the responsibility of the contestant.. only for an optional release on a CD it would be handy if all the tracks would sound equally loud.. I wouldn't however want to master-compress an already mastered track again.. better do so on the raw unmastered waves.
On the other hand, I hate to give tracks of my own out of hands for editing.. been there, done that.. bad experience it was.. there's always some nincompoop tweaking your stuff the wrong way!

By POISONIC

Paladin (1012)

POISONIC's picture

30-12-2005, 14:55

Re encoding MP3 is kind off a loss..... you can compare it with copying a vhs tape to another vhs tape deck...... the copy gets more bad then ever...... in MP3 terms the high sounds will vanish even more if you would do this proces 4 times.... yes an re encoding a 64kbs to a 192kbs mp3 is kind of use less
Wink

By Low_Profile

Champion (425)

Low_Profile's picture

30-12-2005, 17:05

I'd say only redo the incoming mp3's if they're significantly softer (or louder) than the average entry.

Otherwise re-encoding a perfectly mastered/normalized mp3 is useless and needless work Wink

By mars2000you

Enlighted (5773)

mars2000you's picture

30-12-2005, 17:21

I especially agree with Wolf. When making MP3 files by using blueMSX, I create first a WAV file that I will eventually normalize before using the feature 'MP3 encoding'. If I'm not satisfied with the MP3, then I have 2 solutions : completely remake the WAV file in blueMSX and/or the normalisation. Although I'm a novice in MP3 encoding, I can't understand why some people want to re-normalize an MP3 file, at least at this step of the challenge. Later, if it seems necessary, the only competent person to remake the normalisation is the creator himself of the WAV file, because it is his creation and because he knows therefore better than anyone else what must be the final result in the form of a MP3 file. And of course the re-normalisation must be applied to the original WAV file, not the MP3 file.