frustrated with mp3's and my f*&^in space

  • Thread starter Thread starter eeb
  • Start date Start date
E

eeb

New member
Okay i know this is quite obvioius but christ man.. I just uploaded a track on myspace.. (it was a fairly good mix.. nice and warm although the vocals do have to come up a bit.) and the playback on myspace sounds absolutely NOTHING like the original file.. I created the mp3 in adobe audition at 192 (whatever the sample rate thing is called).. I noticed a difference from my mp3 to the original wav but the difference didn't make my mix sound like complete ass (just partial ass ;) ) anyways the myspace version sounds like more than complete ass.. it's like 50 asses..

so here's the questions:

1) what sample rater do you make mp3's at is 192 still way too low?
2) are there any sites out there that are less ass then myspace... (most that i've checked out like purevolume are just as ass if not more)


oh here's the myspace in case you want to hear the destroyed mix of mine.

http://www.myspace.com/poorlydrawnbirds
 
MySpace does make the original file sound worsel, but it shouldn't be THAT bad. A 192kps MP3 shouldn't be fine.

If you heard a noticeable difference between your WAV file and your MP3, then that might be more where your problem is.
 
I use soundclick. Greatest place I've found to post up my music.
 
The sample rate you use will make little difference, 192 is usually OK sounding.

I think myspace does it's own compression or reformatting and that's what fucks up the way stuff sounds. No way around that really.
 
I figured as much... but up until now i've never really noticed such a drastic change in sound... maybe something got bunkafied when i uploaded it.. maybe i'll try again
 
You can get a domain name and server that will more than cover your needs for a year for the cost of one movie date. Why dick around with the toy websites like meSpace when you can make your own real one that looks and sounds a whole lot better and is a whole lot more functional?

G.
 
of course.. website is in the works :) I can't stand all these bands who want people to take them seriously and they list their website as myspace.com/wesuck this is just for now.. i just never had myspace destroy one of my mixes so badly before...
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
You can get a domain name and server that will more than cover your needs for a year for the cost of one movie date. Why dick around with the toy websites like meSpace when you can make your own real one that looks and sounds a whole lot better and is a whole lot more functional?

G.
Click to expand...

shoot, movie dates nowadays are expensive. Don't make no damn sense that I have to pay 22 bux to watch a damn movie wit my babe. She knows if shes hungry afterward that we can hit the dollar menu up, sh*t.
anyhow.
Yea if you are serious about your music, it will be more official on a self hosted webpage. Plus then you know you if something sounds bad, that you did it wrong and can fix it. If you have the cash to do it, you should. Tell the mrs. that yall gonna have to cupcake on the couch for the night cause you had some business expenses to take care of :cool:
 
it really won't break the bank to get a website.. 25$ for a domain name and free hosting at doteasy.com (and their price goes on sale all the time)


myspace is good for it's networking.. we've gotten a few shows on myspace before.. but i still HATE it hahah
 
The mistake most people make when uploading to a streaming site (I know this is true for SoundClick and I'm sure MySpace) is that they upload the MP3 at a higher bitrate than the site allows.

For example, SoundClick forces MP3s to 128 KBPS. If you upload one at 192 KBPS, it will be brought down to 128 KBPS. What you're doing is, converting to MP3 twice!. If you would just upload your MP3 at 128 KBPS to begin with it would sound better. I've done this experiment on SoundClick but not MySpace.

MySpace is even worse, forcing a quality of 96 KBPS. Try uploading the same song twice (with a different name of course). One at say, 192 or 320 KBS. Another strictly at 96 KBPS. And see how they compare.

One more thing, the benefit of uploading say, a 320 KBPS MP3 is that if your song is downloadable, when someone downloads it they will in fact get the 320 KBPS version, it's just the streaming player that brings it down. This is true for both MySpace and SoundClick.

So if you want a HQ download of the MP3, then yes, upload at the highest bitrate possible. But if it's strictly for streaming, just upload at the site's bitrate.
 
eeb said:
i notice a huge difference between the origianl mp3 and the myspace file.. the myspace file looses all of it's punch..


I posted an mp3 here

http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=30864


tell me i'm not insane and there's a HUGE difference.. this is the SAME file i uploaded to myspace
Click to expand...


I think you're nuts. I've listened to both back to back and there may be a little high end loss on the myspace file. Nothing drastic like you are describing. I think you want to hear a difference and therefore do. Neither have what I would call punch.
 
i dunno ... that may be true.. but to me it sounds alot worse on myspace.. I've never really had this issue with myspace where i noticed such a huge loss in quality.. when i uploaded it i was EXPECTING it to be very close. i've listened to both back to back a few times and it really bugs me.

i'll try converting the file to 96 kbps and see how that works out.. (it's not that big of a deal right now because this song isn't done yet and i'll be replacing it soon anyway.)
 
If you want to check out a great host, try www.bandzoogle.com. I have my site there. 19.95 for 1000mgs, very user-friendly. I'm a drummer and I was able to put my site together. :D
 
RAMI said:
If you want to check out a great host, try www.bandzoogle.com. I have my site there. 19.95 for 1000mgs, very user-friendly. I'm a drummer and I was able to put my site together. :D
Click to expand...

what are you saying? that drummer can't put sites together :cool:

1000mgs is pretty large.. I couldn't imagine needing THAT much for a simple site.. but that's also not a bad price
 
eeb said:
what are you saying? that drummer can't put sites together :cool:

1000mgs is pretty large.. I couldn't imagine needing THAT much for a simple site.. but that's also not a bad price
Click to expand...

I think you can get 500mg for 15.95, if I'm not mistaken. For most people that's more than enough. I have MP3's, Wav's, pictures, even a forum and a bunch of other stuff up there and I'm barely exceeding 500mg.
 
eeb said:
what are you saying? that drummer can't put sites together :cool:

1000mgs is pretty large.. I couldn't imagine needing THAT much for a simple site.. but that's also not a bad price
Click to expand...

But... one gig of space will only get you about 250 4MB mp3's! I know I want more than that offered on my site. And Hell, that doesn't include space for the web pages themselves. Say, we're down to 249 mp3's. That's a bunch a bunk.
 
The main spec to watch for is not necessarily how much storage space they give you, as most hosting companies are pretty generous about that these days. Rather, the big one to watch is how much download bandwidth they give you per month.

Even if you have only five 4MB MP3s, using only 20MB of disk space, it only takes 100 streams or downloads of each song per month to use up 2GB of bandwidth.

G.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top