Train-Sim.Com
MSTS Sound Design

Sms file postulations

Notice to all visitors and members of the Train-Sim.Com message forums:
If you plan on using a signature banner in your posts, we would like to remind you that there is a maximum size for banners. That maximum is 450 pixels wide by 120 pixels high, and not to exceed 25k. Your compliance is appreciated. FORUM RULES Problems? There are two common reasons for problems with logging in and posting messages. The first is that you are running a firewall that prevents your messages from being sent to the server. The other is that you have cookies disabled; the DCForum software requires cookies to work properly.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend

Reading Topic #364

Member since Oct-26-02 · 410 posts

Inspired by Ralf Hagen's good work, my career experience in sound, and a desire to manipulate the mixing of sounds of my own design within MSTS, I set out to unravel some puzzlements.In Mr. Hagen's good published work, he teaches: Quote Volume:
The Volume-Value supposedly goes from 0 to 1 however people have already successfully experimented with values over 1. I think that the Volume-Value indicates, with which volume in fractions of the original volume of the wav File, the file is played, thus with 0.5 half so loud, with 1.0 at original volume and with 2.0 at double volume.
I believe I have unearthed additional and meaningful data:Mr. Hagen is correct on all points, but there's a missing bit. Specifically, The volume entered for the ScalabilityGroup has its upper limit at 1.0 and no number above that will increase what I shall call the Master Volume for the Scalability group in question.NOTE: It has been established that ScalabilityGroup 5 is used for "full-bore" slider settings, Scalability group 3 for the lesser settings, and ScalabilityGroup 1 for the sound-challenged. Additionally, I have discovered the availability of ScalabilityGroup 2, which appears to make itself available to all slider settings and is used for things like "wind" and other sounds globally necessary for the ambience to seem acceptable to even the soundcard-handicapped. I have not, however, found ScalabilityGroup 4 in use and have not tinkered with that. SCALABILITYGROUP MASTER VOLUME FUNCTION
It appears to this author, the ScalabilityGroup volume declaration allows an overall adjustment to be imposed on all volumes within the SG itself. Its benefit is to enable some manner of throttling back, or alternately goosing the collection of .wav files called within the
group; a way to make adjustments for the most robust and weakest in the recorded series of audio files. To clarify this, somewhat, let's digress to the problem most people have with MP3 files and the varying peak and RMS levels inherent in a
collection from various sources which become especially problematic when burned to an audio CD without first being either "Peak" normalized, RMS normalized, or otherwise processed to give the various components of the collection a common volume ground.It's much the same within MSTS although we are dealing with .wav files and not mp3s. Pity that--think of the HD space we'd save if MP3s were implemented within the .sim. There is, in fact, a little program floating around that will make a browser "think" an mp3 is a .wav but I've lost track of it. It may work within MSTS and since we're dealing with compression and lo-fi anyhow, what me worry.A quick review of dozens and dozens of MSTS audio files (both default and third-party), reveals something expected but reportedly
interesting nonetheless: Volumes of .wav files are all over the place. That is not to pre-suppose it is an intentional avenue to give a "leg-up" to mixing--it is instead revealing that sound in the hands of those unfamiliar with its software, its waveforms, its RMS energy, can quickly make a mess of things and more often do, than not. To those unschooled and unskilled, it becomes indeed a "Black Art." VOLUME(S) GREATER THAN 1.0
Although it is true that ScalabilityGroup (Master) volumes greater than "1.0" have no effect, it is not of volume falues
within individual elements within the ScalabilityGroup. Let me explain by way of example:1. If the Master ScalabilityGroup volume is set to 1.0, only volumes less than 1.0 will have an effect within the SG.2. If the Master ScalabilityGroup volume is set to 0.5, volumes within the group may be defined up to 2.0 effectively doubling the SG Master to result in 1.0.3. If the Master ScalabilityGroup volume is set to 0.25, then volume values within the group of 4.0 should be possible, insofar as 4-times
the declared, multiplied against the root ScalabilityGroup setting of 0.25 yields 1.0--which is all we've got to play with--their ain't no more and as Bugs Bunny might say: "That's all folks."CONCLUSION
Declaring something less than 1.0 as a ScalabilityGroup value allows a conveniently sophisticated ability to "mix" sounds linked to various trigger mechanisms and I am impressed with the malleability allowed. Having said that, I am also sympathetic toward the MSTS hobby design community who find sound design more daunting a task than it need be. Certainly the .sms interface is not a friendly one for those talented people with other disciplines as their forte.Afterthoughts
I didn't want to end this post on the above note. Here, then, are some tips for those wishing to excel in the MSTS sound arena:1. Use a high quality recording, and make sure the dynamics are such they will survive in the "mix." That likely will require raising the
program energy to maximum levels and making final level adjustments within the .sms.2. Remember the "floor" of noise in MSTS is that of a railroad, making use of a wide dynamic range nearly hopeless. Just as listening to Classical Music in a throbbing automobile will cause the pianissimo to be lost beneath the roar of engine, road, and wind--so too the sounds for MSTS. The medicine for that ill is called "Dynamic Compression" and it should be generously dispensed to your .wav file if it is to be heard and manipulated within the din of train rattling.I have enjoyed this little venture into sharing and as I feel inclined to articulate additional finds, I will. By sharing discoveries, we all benefit.Have fun!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Member since Feb-5-03 · 343 posts

RE: .sms file postulations

Hi Mike, A couple things.>It's much the same within MSTS although we are dealing with
>.wav files and not mp3s. Pity that--think of the HD space
>we'd save if MP3s were implemented within the .sim. Aack!! But MP3 files sound hideous! Granted, the .wavs used in MSTS are only 11kHz, but an 11kHz .wav still sounds better than a standard 128kbps MP3. The .wav will be full bandwidth up to roughly 5.5kHz. Anything above that is chopped. This adds up to the files being a bit "muffled" or "dark" because there isn't any high frequency information.An MP3 however is limited spectrum regardless of sampling frequency. An MP3 file is encoded with a lossy (not a typo) compression scheme derived from noise shaping algorithms. This means that the codec will analyse the file and decide which bits you cannot "hear" because they are being masked by other frequencies and cuts them out. Great hunks are carved out of your audio and lost forever. Full bandwidth, (assuming a sampling rate of 44.1kHz) limited spectrum. If you were to look at the waveform in a spectrum analyser after compression, It's plain to see that a great deal of your audio is missing. I personally also think it's easy to hear this, but as a recording/mastering engineer, I have highly trained ears. I guess if you wanted to you could go with a 360kbps MP3 to increase fidelity, but then your space savings over an 11kHz .wav won't be as substantial.>There is, in fact, a little program floating around that will make
>a browser "think" an mp3 is a .wav but I've lost track of
>it. It may work within MSTS and since we're dealing with
>compression and lo-fi anyhow, what me worry. What??? Really? This I'd like to see! Talk about voodoo...The difference between MP3s and .wavs aren't simply varying levels of data compression. They are a totally different encoding algorithm. There is absolutely no possible way that a piece of software could make an MP3 appear to be a .wav! You could try changing the file extension, edit the header on the .wav, (assuming it's a non-broadcast .wav) or whatever... It simply cannot change the fact that you must have a suitable decoder to play your sound file. If your .wav player only has a .wav decoder onboard, it will not play an MP3 no matter what you try. There are some real time conversion codecs that can convert from MP3 to .wav and vice versa on the fly, but this is an actual file conversion instead of "tricking" an app. into thinking one file type is another. They are also very hardware intensive, so using them in conjunction with a hardware hungry monster like MSTS would be unsuitable. Not to mention that the MSTS sound engine would need some serious tweaking to get this to happen. More like a total re-write of the code.>The medicine for that ill is called
>"Dynamic Compression" and it should be generously dispensed
>to your .wav file if it is to be heard and manipulated
>within the din of train rattling. Audio compression in the hands of the unknowing can be a much greater evil than uneven sound file volumes.I already mentioned I'm a recording/mastering engineer, and I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've been asked to "fix" someones overzealous compression. There are a few tricks you can use, but you can never totally overcome the damage done. Sure too much compression will be more noticeable in music than in train sounds, but a little caution is in order. -Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Member since Oct-26-02 · 410 posts

RE: .sms file postulations

Why do I get the feeling you are arm-wrestling with me? Why did you feel it necessary to flash your badge of recording/mastering engineer when I found no need to flash mine?I won't engage you here.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Member since Feb-5-03 · 343 posts

RE: .sms file postulations

Easy there Mike! >Why do I get the feeling you are arm-wrestling with me? Nothing of the sort! I'm not trying to be hostile here. Simply stating some facts and opinions and trying to avoid any misinterpretation.Facts about the difference between .wav and MP3, and why I don't think it's even possible to consider using them in MSTS.Opinions that MP3 is poor audio quality. Misinterpretation that I felt people who don't know a thing about audio compression will read your post and squash the living daylights out of their audio files.

>Why did you feel it necessary to flash your badge of
>recording/mastering engineer when I found no need to flash
>mine? Wasn't flashing my badge at all. Sadly, some people around here seem to need validation of ones credentials before they will believe you actually know what you're talking about. In hindsight, maybe I should have said "my career experience in sound" like you did.>I won't engage you here. That's great, because I'm not trying to step on anybodies toes. -Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP


[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.

Restored from the Train-Sim.Com archive, captured June 26, 2003. About this archive.