You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
TL;DR: it's probably not worth implementing a .xm file option. See the tables below for some file size comparisons I've done.
File Sizes
MP3 File
Duration
Size (.wav)*
Size (.it)
Size (.xm)
Size (.it.uz)
Size (.xm.uz)
Trance music
06:27
16,764 KB
16,667 KB
16,668 KB
8,331 KB
7,962 KB
Pop music
03:36
9,646 KB
9,305 KB
9,306 KB
4,845 KB
4,739 KB
Rock music
03:56
10,522 KB
10,167 KB
10,167 KB
7,829 KB
7,650 KB
Classical music
02:10
2,837 KB
2,811 KB
2,811 KB
653 KB
651 KB
*8-bit/22 kHz.
Compression Difference
MP3 File
Size (.it.uz)
Size (.xm.uz)
Difference (KB)
Trance music
8,331 KB
7,962 KB
-369 KB
-4.43%
Pop music
4,845 KB
4,739 KB
-106 KB
-2.19%
Rock music
7,829 KB
7,650 KB
-179 KB
-2.28%
Classical music
653 KB
651 KB
-2 KB
-0.32%
Clearly .xm does compress slightly better than .it, but in my opinion it's not worth the effort of implementing another format just to save a few kilobytes, so I am closing this issue for now.
If anyone feels like adding .xm then pull requests are welcome.
As suggested in #1, using XM format may lead to better compression due to the format's use of delta-encoding for samples.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: