FF7 - Part 1: Is it even possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Srethron Askvelhtnod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Skillster: You've missed the problem here. The problem is, because FF7 stores its midis in LGP archives, when it plays them it doesn't send a filename to WinMM - just a block of raw data that it's extracted from the LGP. Hence you don't automatically know which file is playing...It can be sorted, of course; but that's why it's not 100% straightforward.
 
Dag Sverre: Heh. Thanks for the info.The Skillster: Thanks for the mail.

Jari Huttunen: Thanks for the info. I'll still try it out just so I don't leave any stones unturned.

Ficedula: In other words, it'd be best to make the changes Dag's talking about to all four of the midi files?

[This message has been edited by Srethron Askvelhtnod (edited February 05, 2001).]
 
BTW: Might as well build Direct3D layer when you're at doing a WinMM layer = Might as well build Rome when you're at putting this brick on top of the other one = Might as well spend a month doing Direct3D when you're at spending three hours on WinMM.Just noticed it in Skillster's post and couldn't resist...
 
sorry, just thought a start is better then nothing at all  :(
 
Seriously - how many people would want a WinMM layer to play mp3's? I've got a simple version working on my PC (plays an MP3 version of the overworld theme), but it'd be a bit more work to do it for every midi, especially given the shitty way I identify which midi is playing...
 
I dont know really :O , I would perfer to have BETTER midi quality then have buggy MP3 quality (not to say that it will be, but you still have to have the mp3s tho dont you?).
But seeing how now ones bothered to make better midis, there seems to be much better mp3 remixes/remakes of ff7 music, so i guess the volume of better media is really the deciding factor. Unless someone (maybe?) makes a new collection of FF7 music, or someone finds some great FF7 music on the internet (theres gotta be some somwhere?).
Until then i dont care if its MP3 or MIDI, i just want better music with more instruments and more like a live orchestra....
 
You do know the concept of MIDI right? MIDI is the scores, MP3 is air waves transformed in to numbers and compressed...even comparing them like the way you do is madness really...If you want MIDI, there will have to be a composer behind them. A real, human composer, who can plot down the scores. Also you'll need a decent soundfont, which takes some work if you want it for free and in the quality you're talking about. But if you can't get a composer to write down the scores and the 'directing of the orcestra' (adding volume and pressure finesses etc.) then the best you can do is what we have done in FFSF.

The question about MP3 quality is moot however, if you own the soundtracks just compress them at 300 kbps VBR and if you still care about quality loss I'll suggest something else for you than playing video games...like getting back to listening to that $5 000 sound system you must have to be able to pick that difference up...
 
Oh god there is a difrence. I have mp3s in 128kbs 196 and 256. The 128s still sound nice(about 10 times better than that midi) but the few I have in 256 sound lovely more or less what you get on a cd. Now I dont have a $5000 sound system but I t probley wieghs in at several hundred pounds. I know a FTP with the FFVII MP3s on it but it currently only has FFIX mp3s onit(Its under reconstruction)
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGVGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :x  :oops:
! MAN, DONT TELL ME THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MP3 AND MIDI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AAA! Theres a big difference between wave quality and midi composition, I just want better midi thats all, if i can find some then thats great, it saves u guys goin to the truoble to remapping the midi calls to mp3s etc (what about making it to WMA?).
Dont think I dont know whats what in the deep end of multimedia....
 :x  :oops:
 
Right ... don't expect it anytime very soon, coursework has loomed its ugly head once more. Unless Dag wants to volunteer for the task?
 
Alright. Good luck then. I'm starting to see an increase in my own coursework, so I might be forced to come less frequently as well.
 
Why use MP3 though?  WMA is 1/3 the size.  A 64 kbps WMA  has the same quality as a 192 kbps MP3  - I converted all mine and I'll have to say myself that it is true.
 
Corse work?  Corse worked has been rearing its ugly head in my life for over a year. And every time its appears I kick it back down. I have about 3 peices of english corse work to hand in 2 peices of media studies. 5 peices for science and 2 for RE. Im soding the lots except for english and media studies.
 
That depends entirely on the encoder. The encoder that came with my MP3 Player encodes 96KBps Mp3's that are better quality than the 64KBps WMA's that the MS WMA encoder produces. In fact, at 64KBps VBR MP3 it still sounds just as good as the MS WMA's... the fact is that most freeware MP3 encoders aren't that good...
 
I can't stand MP3's under 256KBps stereo. They loose several high and low level sounds. This is very apparent when you burn them to an audio CD. I prefer 320KBps stereo though.  :)
 
as much as I would enjoy MP3s for music, loops would be difficult. And wma as just stupid. I don't trust a music format to has licence restrictions.-Halkhun
 
Well, I read on Microsoft's site, that with most encoders, a 192 kbps MP3 is CD-quality audio.  Most on Napster are 128-192 kbps.  With Microsoft Media Encoder 8 you can encode 192 kbps MP3s to 64 kbps WMA without losing quality (and 128 -> 44).Anyway, loops would be difficult if you're using an external player, but if you're using one you make you could have it when it gets to the end, jump back a cerian number of bytes and start playing some more.  This is similar to what the MIDIs do.  But to do this, you wouldn't be able to use MP3s ripped from the CD, you'd have to do some editing.  And everyone would have to use the same set of MP3s or make up there own loop thing, or the loops might be a couple of seconds off.
 
Frankly, those stats are bull. MS have obviously selected very carefully which MP3 encoders they're comparing against.Most freeware encoders (at least that I've tried) ARE bad unless you crank the bitrate >128KBps. So what? Get a good one, and 128KBps is (to me) CD quality. 64KBps WMA is not. I've got a lot of WMA's I encoded myself at 64KBps, and believe me, they aren't as good as my MP3's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top