Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Prehistoric style #25

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Mar 30, 2023
Merged

Add Prehistoric style #25

merged 10 commits into from
Mar 30, 2023

Conversation

Flyxxpy
Copy link
Contributor

@Flyxxpy Flyxxpy commented Mar 10, 2023

Add Prehistoric music style, make changes to readme.md

"tracks": [
{
"source": "music/0.flac",
"name": "Flyxxpy - The Ancient Lands"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"name": "The Ancient Lands",
"composer": "Flyxxpy"

@karst
Copy link
Member

karst commented Mar 10, 2023

The file size of the flac file is about half the size I would have expected. Did you render it at 41000hz project rate rather than the 20500 that RCT uses? The converter will take care that the size is small when included, but it leaves the ability in the future to have "high quality" packs available as well as the soundtrack itself in full quality.

@Flyxxpy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flyxxpy commented Mar 10, 2023

I just changed the track to 44.1 kHz.

@Flyxxpy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flyxxpy commented Mar 10, 2023

I changed the data in the json file according to what you mentioned in your first comment.

karst
karst previously approved these changes Mar 10, 2023
@karst
Copy link
Member

karst commented Mar 13, 2023

Could you also edit openrct2.music.alternative.json for me similar to how I have done here: https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenMusic/pull/21/files

@karst karst dismissed their stale review March 13, 2023 23:09

openrct2.music.alternative.json requires changes. Also a conflict with the readme needs to be resolved.

Copy link
Member

@karst karst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See comment above.

@Flyxxpy Flyxxpy requested a review from karst March 14, 2023 10:35
Copy link
Member

@tupaschoal tupaschoal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I really like this one, in contrast I think it's even better and more epic than the original. It did feel to me though that the volume was a bit maxed out and "cutting" at the beginning, maybe it needs to be dampened a bit (?)

PS: Yes, I have very crappy speakers, but then, this makes for a good second opinion, since you folks probably have studio-grade audio equipment :D

@Flyxxpy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flyxxpy commented Mar 14, 2023

I really like this one, in contrast I think it's even better and more epic than the original. It did feel to me though that the volume was a bit maxed out and "cutting" at the beginning, maybe it needs to be dampened a bit (?)

PS: Yes, I have very crappy speakers, but then, this makes for a good second opinion, since you folks probably have studio-grade audio equipment :D

I know what you're referring to, I had to add a maximizer and a limiter to the track, as its volume originally was way too low compared to all the other tracks. This also seemed to work quite a lot better than trying to use a compressor, though I don't know much more than the basics of mastering audio, so there are probably better ways to do this.

@Flyxxpy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flyxxpy commented Mar 14, 2023

I really like this one, in contrast I think it's even better and more epic than the original. It did feel to me though that the volume was a bit maxed out and "cutting" at the beginning, maybe it needs to be dampened a bit (?)

PS: Yes, I have very crappy speakers, but then, this makes for a good second opinion, since you folks probably have studio-grade audio equipment :D

I improved the volume consistency of the track quite a bit, thanks for your input!

@karst
Copy link
Member

karst commented Mar 14, 2023

The new master seems to poke out some issues in the mix, there's some painful frequencies at 500hz and 2000hz, I'd probably also lower the sub slightly, perhaps by 3db. 130hz seems a tad muddy, perhaps the tom is clashing with a pad on the lowend, but only slightly. It also seems that the file is missing its tail moved from the end to the start (I think you just rendered the full song without tail, rather than re-rending it after placing the tail back to the front.

This is the EQ I applied and seems to work naturally.
image

I am happy with the code :)

@tupaschoal
Copy link
Member

Hmm, I still get mixed feelings, feel like there is background noise, maybe it is the choir? How easy is it for you to attach a version here with the choir off?

@Flyxxpy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flyxxpy commented Mar 17, 2023

Hmm, I still get mixed feelings, feel like there is background noise, maybe it is the choir? How easy is it for you to attach a version here with the choir off?

Does this work for you?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qruqfyoAmtvh7LHihc4E__Xmjqp1WKdv/view?usp=share_link

This does not have the EQ applied, though, as that was done by karst.

@tupaschoal
Copy link
Member

I love it that way!

@Flyxxpy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flyxxpy commented Mar 26, 2023

I love it that way!

Thanks! The final version without choir and with the EQ applied is now commited.

I need to pay attention to my rendering settings.
@karst karst merged commit 996e5ac into OpenRCT2:master Mar 30, 2023
@karst
Copy link
Member

karst commented Mar 30, 2023

Once I know if OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2#19785 will get merged I'll make sure to create a new release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants