Author Topic: [COMPO] The MODPlug Tracker Compo 2007 (Read 75169 times)

xaimus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2007, 00:02:01 »

awesome

residentgrey · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2007, 01:13:50 »

Since it's so restricted maybe you can use it for the song creation tutorial on the MPT wiki.

Sam_Zen · « **Reply #17 on:** January 11, 2007, 02:28:56 »

While I was removing the click of sample 7 anyway (no need to cut anything shorter), I checked the other samples as well.
I noticed 3 samples as the longest sequences, with the obvious intention to have the same length : 3 - 7 - 8
Many other samples were supposed to be the half of that length : 1 - 2 and 9 to 15.
Samples 4 - 5 - 6 seem to have no number relationship to this.
But those sequence- and riff-lengths were not always the same. Maybe I'm a freak, but if it's possible to have it exact, I want it exact.
So I tuned some bytes to make each file of the group having exactly the same amount of samples.

EDIT : Link removed.

Waxhead · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2007, 06:02:16 »

I don't think it's a good idea to fix the samples. Why?!
First of all sound quality was not important and messing around with the samples was forbidden. I think we should just work with what we got.

xaimus · « **Reply #19 on:** January 11, 2007, 07:09:30 »

Would changing the sampling rate (not resampling--just changing the tuning) on some of the samples be acceptable?

BooT-SectoR-ViruZ · « **Reply #20 on:** January 11, 2007, 09:54:21 »

...not participating, because i don't like the rules...

LPChip · « **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2007, 10:46:10 »

Quote from: "xaimus"

Would changing the sampling rate (not resampling--just changing the tuning) on some of the samples be acceptable?

Hmm, Yeah, that is allowed. It's not in combat with the objective.

LPChip · « **Reply #22 on:** January 11, 2007, 10:47:20 »

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"

While I was removing the click of sample 7 anyway (no need to cut anything shorter), I checked the other samples as well.
I noticed 3 samples as the longest sequences, with the obvious intention to have the same length : 3 - 7 - 8
Many other samples were supposed to be the half of that length : 1 - 2 and 9 to 15.
Samples 4 - 5 - 6 seem to have no number relationship to this.
But those sequence- and riff-lengths were not always the same. Maybe I'm a freak, but if it's possible to have it exact, I want it exact.
So I tuned some bytes to make each file of the group having exactly the same amount of samples. With consensus of LPChip, you can find these versions here :
http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/download/lpchip/mpt_compo.zip
File is not an .IT, so a bit bigger, 5.3 Mb. Just the zipped wavs.

You can also download the newer samplepack. I have fixed these samples based on sam_zen's wave's.

Sam_Zen · « **Reply #23 on:** January 12, 2007, 00:54:00 »

So I removed the link to the pack mentioned above.

2 Waxhead
Fixing an undesired tick in the transition of a loop has nothing to do with sound quality or messing around with a sample.
The content stays the same, it's just a matter of setting the first and last sample-moment of the sound on a zero DC level.

You can have a high quality sound-source to an amplifier, but a crappy connector can spoil the fun. It has to be repaired.
And a loop connects the last point with the first point of the wave. So this must be a smooth transition.

When finetuning the common length, on some files I only had to remove 1 or 2 'samples' from the end. A difference of
1/22050 sec. Not quite detectable, I think.

Waxhead · « **Reply #24 on:** January 12, 2007, 02:54:07 »

2 Sam_zen:
As I see it the point with this contest was to find out who was able to make the most out of the samplepack we got. Therefore I personaly don't se the point in modifying the samples especially since soundquality was not important to the contest.
Maybe someone even found a use for that click in their song!? very unlikely actually but regardless the samplepack is not the original even if it's just a few bytes off.
Also I don't like the idea of a "fixed" samplepack either, but this is just me and my psycotic view on things

Anyway ... I'm sticking with the original samplepack (as long as everyone is ok with that) even if it have a few minor flaws and see what I can do about it without doing any editing/tuning of the samples.

PS! I will not let this little "bullcrap" of a issue affect my votes for your submission Sam. I can assure you that.

It's just a simple (yeah right) principle thing. Good luck in the contest!

Sam_Zen · « **Reply #25 on:** January 12, 2007, 03:10:19 »

Same to you !

LPChip · « **Reply #26 on:** January 12, 2007, 08:56:26 »

I don't mind if you use the old pack. Can you atleast change all the 2006 mentions to 2007?

That is allowed

Waxhead · « **Reply #27 on:** January 12, 2007, 15:22:08 »

Sure thing! - Damn dude I really like this samplepack because it sucks!! :lol: - Perhaps it's the programmer in me who like to solve problems or maybe it's just the fact that it was cool samples to experiment with

LPChip · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2007, 15:48:52 »

Quote from: "Waxhead"

Sure thing! - Damn dude I really like this samplepack because it sucks!! :lol: - Perhaps it's the programmer in me who like to solve problems or maybe it's just the fact that it was cool samples to experiment with

I'm not really sure if I should take that as a compliment or not, but I'm a positive guy, so if you don't like it, then its your problem...

I made the pack knowing that probably no one would really like it, but then again, its the challenge to be able to do something with it.

Waxhead · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2007, 15:53:11 »

Quote from: "LPChip"

I'm not really sure if I should take that as a compliment or not

You should! It's good because it have quality sounds but it sucks because of the arrangement of the samples = very hard to work with. Good job chip!