Radio Project - Who should play Dr. Ink?

Started by Tapewolf, July 29, 2006, 01:35:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Who should play Ink?

Tezkat
5 (31.3%)
J. P. Morris
1 (6.3%)
He should do it
5 (31.3%)
"I should!" - please provide a sample file..
3 (18.8%)
Other
2 (12.5%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: August 12, 2006, 01:35:59 PM

Sketchy boy

I Can try.  Im good at repeating accents.  Its just i can't decide on a voice.

Saist


llearch n'n'daCorna

Well, I finally got around to recording my voice.

It was so totally un-Ink-like, when played back, that I think I shall decline to share it with anyone, and instead go hide my head under a rock or something.


Yes, that sounds like a good plan.
Thanks for all the images | Unofficial DMFA IRC server
"We found Scientology!" -- The Bad Idea Bears

Tapewolf

Well, it seems to be a tie between Ink (who has not so far produced a recording) and Tezkat.
If Ink does provide, we'll look at it again, but for now it's gonna be Tezkat.

http://dmfa.it-he.org/dmfa/saia3_2.wav.mp3

J.P. Morris, Chief Engineer DMFA Radio Project * IT-HE * D-T-E


Sienna Maiu - M T

Hmm... the texkat one has grown on me after listening to it a couple times, although the second one had a certain quality closer to my original envisionings of Dr. Ink, a sort of airy-evil, although something is definately missing. The third unfortunately seems to hold somewhat of a resounding dullness, almost flat. Not even a good dead-pan... *muses on this*

Oh and... why must you people torture me with your .ogg's? Why?!?!

llearch n'n'daCorna

Because they're better than mp3, and smaller than wavs. :-P
Thanks for all the images | Unofficial DMFA IRC server
"We found Scientology!" -- The Bad Idea Bears

Aridas

"better than mp3" doesn't cut it >.>

Give poor li'l sienna some mp3s. *patpats sienna*

Tapewolf

Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on August 24, 2006, 04:15:20 AM
"better than mp3" doesn't cut it >.>

Give poor li'l sienna some mp3s. *patpats sienna*

How about the fact that the MP3 coding process is patented in the US and therefore illegal?  Is that a good enough excuse?

J.P. Morris, Chief Engineer DMFA Radio Project * IT-HE * D-T-E


Aridas


llearch n'n'daCorna

I'm sorry, you wanted a -serious- answer?

Try Tapewolf's response. Try "smaller file size with better sound". Try "freely available". Try "don't have to pay for every application for encoding them". Try "don't have to pay for every application for playing them". Need I go on?

Heck, try getting the winamp plugin to play it, which, last I heard, I think is now part of the standard set of plugins. I don't seriously know, since I don't use windows, and haven't for two or three years now.
Thanks for all the images | Unofficial DMFA IRC server
"We found Scientology!" -- The Bad Idea Bears

Aridas

*gives llearch an eyepatch* pirating?

And how about mp3PRO?

llearch n'n'daCorna

According to the patent, and the licencing Fraunhoffer allow people to use their codec...

mp3PRO is an encoder, and hence should be paying them royalties. The fact that -you- aren't paying those royalties doesn't mean they aren't being paid. Nor does it mean they -are- - breaking the law is an option.

The point we're trying to make is that, according to US patent law (which international law seems to agree covers anything that might have some sort of contact in the states) -someone- should be paying Fraunhoffer for each use of the mp3 codec - whether they re-wrote the code entirely or not.

Which makes it non-free. Even if everyone seems to use it anyway.


Why should we advocate breaking the law, when we can advocate a technical solution that's better?
Thanks for all the images | Unofficial DMFA IRC server
"We found Scientology!" -- The Bad Idea Bears

Aridas

The only ones breaking the law are the ones who create the unlicensed encoders and players.

Quote from: WikipediaFurthermore, while attempts have been made to discourage distribution of encoder binaries, Thomson has stated that individuals using free MP3 encoders are not required to pay fees. Thus while patent fees have been an issue for companies attempting to use MP3, they have not meaningfully impacted users, allowing the format to grow in popularity.

Sienna Maiu - M T


Tapewolf

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on August 24, 2006, 07:11:45 AM
.wav's are good too, I like .wav's ...

I'll go with that, but then you have to compress them with RAR or ZIP or something, or they quickly get gigantic :(
'Sacred Jaguar' in WAV format is 134MB at CD quality, and 451MB at full tilt.  I asked the mastering engineer to RAR-compress it for faster transfer, and it reduced to 351MB, which is not to be sneezed at.

J.P. Morris, Chief Engineer DMFA Radio Project * IT-HE * D-T-E


llearch n'n'daCorna

only 315? ....

Hmm. I'm sure there's options there to shrink it further. I wonder what his defaults are...
Thanks for all the images | Unofficial DMFA IRC server
"We found Scientology!" -- The Bad Idea Bears

Aridas

Do you think one of those lesser used formats like 7z would do good too? I don't exactly use 7z, but people keep saying how good it is, so... *shrug*

Tapewolf

7z was a pig to use in Linux, although it may have improved since.
I'm on Linux and Mr. Shaeffer is on Tiger or something, so it really needs to work on UNIX, not just Windows.  RAR has an advantage over zlib that it does have dedicated audio compression subsystems although 7zip is supposed to be better.

Perhaps we should be discussing methods of transporting audio on the other thread?  'Cause this isn't really much to do with who gets to play Ink  :S

J.P. Morris, Chief Engineer DMFA Radio Project * IT-HE * D-T-E