MP3 Clinic website?

D

danny.guitar

Guest
Anyone think it'd be a cool idea to have a website for the MP3 clinic? :D

A site to register, upload songs, receive feedback/ratings, streaming, higher quality (192 KBPS) MP3s, etc.?

There's already www.lightningmp3.com but I was thinking it'd be cool to have another option out there, since SoundClick and MySpace make you upload crappy MP3s...maybe it will save NL5 on some bandwidth costs. :D

Just wanting some other people's opinions on this...it could be done within this week.
 
that'd be cool and lightningmp3 is blocked on my work network! So I'd be especially happy!
 
Thanks aiden, if you or anyone else has some ideas for features not found on other sites, let me know. :)
 
tbh i think its another forum to join and another password to remember. as it is the mp3 clinics realtively quiet with comments but its good enough, and lightning mp3 is handy and i think the mp3 drop is a good test of a mix
 
Here's a quick screenshot of the simple layout for anyone that may be interested. Nothing is functional yet of course as I just started on it.

I'm aiming for it to just be a simple site to upload and post links to streaming or download. Registration will be quick, just email/password, no need to activate the account (that is a pain in the ass).

mp3_screenshot.gif
 
Greg_L said:
I don't quite get the benefit of this idea. We're IN an MP3 clinic.
Click to expand...

Can you upload songs here? :confused:

The point is a place to upload songs, like SoundClick. Except there isn't a restriction on MP3 quality.

I've had a few people ask me to make this in the past but I never got around to it.
 
Could be a good idea if it takes off and folk go to it.
Where are you going to advertise the site?

Eck
 
danny.guitar said:
Can you upload songs here? :confused:

The point is a place to upload songs, like SoundClick. Except there isn't a restriction on MP3 quality.

I've had a few people ask me to make this in the past but I never got around to it.
Click to expand...

I'm not shitting on your idea, I'm just saying that if there are already sites that allow you upload songs and have them ranked - like that even matters - how hard is it to pop the link in here? How many people do you think have the ears or audio/room capability to pick out the difference between 128 and 320?

I'll join your site and appreciate you making it, but it just seems like a lot of unnecessary work. :p
 
Nah it's something I've wanted to make anyway.

It won't have ranking like SoundClick, it's just simply a place to upload your songs to, so you can post links to streaming or download so other people can listen. And there won't be quality restraints on MP3s (a lot of people can hear the difference between 128 and 192, much less 320 :p)

I actually hate using SoundClick for that very reason.

So anyway, I'll post a link when it's done and if you're not interested, it won't hurt my feelings, but it will be there for those who will find it useful. :)
 
I can hear a big difference between 128 and 320. Web site sounds cool. I converted alot of vinyl to mp3's and when converting the waves I went with 192 consistant rate. I know they say 128 is cd quality but I can hear a difference between 128 and 192. I know alot of people use variable rate, but I couldnt tell the difference, between 192 variable and consistant. And 192 was a good compromise for me. I still have the original waves also archived to cd's. But the difference between 128 and 320 was really dramatic. But it depends on what you play it on too. Im rambling. Dude, you build the site and they will come.
 
BushmasterM4 said:
I can hear a big difference between 128 and 320. Web site sounds cool. I converted alot of vinyl to mp3's and when converting the waves I went with 192 consistant rate. I know they say 128 is cd quality but I can hear a difference between 128 and 192. I know alot of people use variable rate, but I couldnt tell the difference, between 192 variable and consistant. And 192 was a good compromise for me. I still have the original waves also archived to cd's. But the difference between 128 and 320 was really dramatic. But it depends on what you play it on too. Im rambling. Dude, you build the site and they will come.
Click to expand...
Dang man! :)
320 is "CD quality"
128 is "the standard" = shite

192 is good but 320 is a good deal better.

Eck
 
I'm sorry but anyone who can't hear the difference between 128 and 320 is for all intents and purposes, deaf. Videos use different bitrates also, would you tell me most people can't tell the difference between 128 and 320 there? It is like night and day. Just because it's audio doesn't make it any different, because loss affects sound data in exactly the same way as it does visual data, more artifacts and less crispness. As with video, it depends on the content, the more is going on, the more noticeable it is.

I think it's important to know where different bitrates are appropriate.. or acceptable. I am working with a band in a situation where they have to send me their tracks over the internet (they are in Norway, I am in Sweden) and the musician sends me his stuff in wav, but the vocalist has a slower connection so I had to weigh the benefit vs risk of him sending me 4 tracks weighing in at 40 mb each, vs 4 192 kbps mp3's. At first I said I'd prefer wav, but as I was really quite tired and ready to go to bed, I gave in and said 192 should be fine enough. It is screaming, and it will be in a very dense mix with fx added on top, so I seriously doubt it will make a difference in the quality of the final product. Voice tends to hold up fine even at lower bitrates. If it were anything more complex, I would not have settled for anything less than wav, or at the VERY least 320kbps mp3. Also if they had been 128 kbps I would have said forget it.
 
ecktronic said:
Dang man! :)
320 is "CD quality"
128 is "the standard" = shite

192 is good but 320 is a good deal better.

Eck
Click to expand...

Totally agree. The low end is a whole lot better. I render my stuff as 128 for Soundclick, and 320 for my own use and on my site. But all my ipod stuff is 192. I have another batch of vinyl to convert and my Ipod is full now. I really like the 160 gig (I believe or is it 180) Ipod. And that would last me a while. I guess if Soundclick charged maybe 49.95 a year to host 320's I'd jump on it. But their current rate of 9.95 per month is alot. If I was a pro then maybe. But I record as a hobby.
 
BushmasterM4 said:
I guess if Soundclick charged maybe 49.95 a year to host 320's I'd jump on it. But their current rate of 9.95 per month is alot.
Click to expand...

That is a bit steep.
Soon enough file transfer will be so fast that the prices will be non existant for streaming 320kbps MP3. (Lets hope!)

Eck
 
I think it would be a good idea if the mp3 clinic was an all in one feature.

A page with a thread start by the artist or recorder/whatever.
Ability to comment on the post and maybe rate the song.
Upload the song onto that website and be able to stream the song FROM the same page.
Maybe a picture option? for the song or artist or recording set up.
Are we reviewing the recording? fidelity? composition? the poster will clarify?
High bit rate players!
Thats the end of my ideas.

And yes, I would go to it. Mostly because its cool but partly because you're danny.guitar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top