built-in MO3 import for ModplugTracker : interesting or not?

[Laurent]

hi there,

I wonder if the MO3 format is popular enough to raise interest in built-in import in ModPlug ?

Is it planned or not ?

Laurent

[Squirrel Havoc]

The developers have mentioned not using lossy compression in the samples anytime soon, because everytime you save it, it will lose quality

[Laurent]

for info, the MO3 format can store samples in MP3, OGG and lossless format. (http://www.un4seen.com/mo3.html)

Laurent

[Randilyn]

[deleted]

[speed-goddamn-focus]

Another problem is that MO3 is a closed format.

[Relabsoluness]

The developers have mentioned not using lossy compression in the samples anytime soon, because everytime you save it, it will lose quality

I don't know practically anything of the (de)compression techniques so this might be a bizarre question, but doesn't that imply that the lossy compression algorithms are not 'reversable'(or even non-deterministic), meaning that if you decode for example ogg to wav, and then the wav to ogg, the result differs from original ogg(using the same encoding parameters as was used for the original ogg)? Because else, wouldn't it be possible to convert e.g. ogg -> wav -> ogg so that first and latter ogg's would be identical - there wouldn't occur quality loss excluding the original compression?

What would really be impressive is support for FLAC-encoded samples.

Indeed that might be useful.

[Laurent]

Another problem is that MO3 is a closed format.

Forget this problem ;-)

I suggest import, only import. Then you can save et reload in a lossless format.

Laurent

[Sam_Zen]

doesn't that imply that the lossy compression algorithms are not 'reversable'(or even non-deterministic), meaning that if you decode for example ogg to wav, and then the wav to ogg, the result differs from original ogg(using the same encoding parameters as was used for the original ogg)?

You're right. These conversions are not reversable if there is a compression-algorithm where data is lost /skipped.
The 'recap' stage is not able to create the missing pixels again.
The flac-format indeed is the one without data-loss to create the original bytes of a wav again, like the zip-format
does with a data-file.
This is why compressed formats like mp3, ogg, or (bitmaps) jpg, not should be used while composing or editing of some piece. Always use wav-files in the process. Only if you want to have a compact format for distribution purposes, convert the final mix to a compressed version. Better save the source-wav for archiving too. Or as flac.

[Relabsoluness]

You're right. These conversions are not reversable if there is a compression-algorithm where data is lost /skipped.
The 'recap' stage is not able to create the missing pixels again.

I think here is a bit of misunderstanding(sorry for the bad formulation of the question). What I tried to ask was that if doing conversion
wav->ogg->wav->ogg (or some other lossy format),
will the ogg's be different(and if so, why)? Now that I thought it through, the answer obviously is that they are, since in the latter wav->ogg conversion more lossy compression is done, even though the wav represent an ogg-compressed sound - I wondered whether in that case there is any data loss when doing the compression, but I guess there are.

[LPChip]

You're right. These conversions are not reversable if there is a compression-algorithm where data is lost /skipped.
The 'recap' stage is not able to create the missing pixels again.

I think here is a bit of misunderstanding(sorry for the bad formulation of the question). What I tried to ask was that if doing conversion
wav->ogg->wav->ogg (or some other lossy format),
will the ogg's be different(and if so, why)? Now that I thought it through, the answer obviously is that they are, since in the latter wav->ogg conversion more lossy compression is done, even though the wav represent an ogg-compressed sound - I wondered whether in that case there is any data loss when doing the compression, but I guess there are.

The answer is pretty simple.

You can refine the question though... Will lossless appear if you do ogg->ogg? yes.

[Snu]

i never quite understood the reason for this debate, dont see whats wrong with having mp3 samples.  sure, the samples will degrade quality when you first convert them, but after that, the quality shouldnt change any...

i think people were thinking that the mp3s would need to be decoded to wav files each time you open the song, then reencoded each time you save, but why?  just decode them into memory, and keep the original mp3s around, and save those in the song when the user hits save.

would have to disable sample editing tho probably, i know there are programs that can cut/paste mp3 files, but that would be a lot more difficult to implement im sure.

of course, its all really a matter of who wants to code it in, and i agree that it shouldnt be a high priority.

[Laurent]

Hi,

it is free, and under GPL :

http://lclevy.free.fr/mo3

Enjoy !

Laurent

[Laurent]

Hi,

The code source is now available at http://lclevy.free.fr/mo3 to handle MO3 files. For technical people only.

Laurent

[rewbs]

Thanks!