Attention MP3 clinic.......stop using myspace!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg_L
  • Start date Start date
+1
myspace is like putting a song thru a meat mincer!:eek:

Box.net and Soundclick are my favourites, but there are plenty of other good ones.
 
Re 320 mp3 vs wave... I was thinking about it and I bet a lot of listeners could hear the difference between a 44.1/24 bit wave file of a well recorded clean/clear/unsquashed track, and a 320 kbps mp3 of the same. It'd have to be back-to-back though and with better monitoring than computer speakers or earbuds. And the mp3 would have to be converted from wave by a good encoder. I have OK-but-nothing-super-special monitoring and I can hear a veil lifted with the change back and forth. It'd be an interesting experiment.

But like I said, 320 mp3 sounds very good.
 
VBR sticks out a bit (pun) more interms of lacking something.
I like 320 obviously but prfer wav . THOUGH you have to play the wav on a machine that can demonstrate the difference. No point playing it on something that crunches sound for ear bud listening & many media players aren't built for quality.
Then again a wav file is a fair bit down the trunk from an analogue source or from the full 24 bit or better recording on the daw.
I use a little pocket media player occasionally but I made sure it plays wav & I use decent (ish) headphones.
Then again - if Mr Golden Ears Greg ( & I MEAN that) can live with 320 most of the rest of us would be porcine in poo with it.
 
11614bump.jpg
 
I don't think that zipper was designed to zip up all the way
 
By the way......

Unless you want video critiques, posting your song on youtube sucks too. Making a vid for your song is cool, but looking for critical mix suggestions from a youtube link is re-tar-ded.
 
Greg_L said:
By the way......

Unless you want video critiques, posting your song on youtube sucks too. Making a vid for your song is cool, but looking for critical mix suggestions from a youtube link is re-tar-ded.
Click to expand...

What about the HD options? :confused:

I'm not too sure on how uploading to youtube these days works, but the audio from HD tracks has always sounded fairly decent to me as opposed to their non-HD counterparts.
 
Greg_L said:
Will you people please stop using myspace as a link to your songs that you want critiqued? Myspace sucks, and you're not doing yourself any favors by having your music mangled by the myspace player and then having someone else try to decipher what actually sucks about it. There are SEVERAL FREE MP3 hosting sites out there on the interwebs that will allow you to upload a high-quality 320kbps MP3......unless of course you're just looking for "hits" on your silly myspace page. :rolleyes:


Use your head and your google and find a free MP3 hosting site that allows high-quality MP3s.

Mix your song down as a HQ MP3 or a wav and convert it. Simple.

Here's one that I use all the time:
www.lightningmp3.com
Click to expand...

doesn't work for me... It did in the past, but they stopped sending out the email with the link. You say NL5 runs it?
 
philbagg said:
What about the HD options? :confused:

I'm not too sure on how uploading to youtube these days works, but the audio from HD tracks has always sounded fairly decent to me as opposed to their non-HD counterparts.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I can only suspect that even at it's best, youtube sucks.
 
Avoid YouTube links please, that's worse than mySpace. SoundClick is the shit!
 
The quality of audio on UTUB is determined by the program you use to generate the video. Windows Movie maker doesn't seem to cope with better than 224kbs.
The HD isn't so much HD or HQ as much better than mangled.
Soundclick is OK (except I'm having enormous trouble uploading to it) & is quite good if you're prepared to pay for the priv. as they run 320 for a paid account. I like to use something that streams merely because I, personally, don't like downloading stuff from an unknown person or location.
Mspace is a space online that I use to link to here & soundclick, blog etc. It can be improved by embedding a soundclick player - same with fbook.
the essential premise that prompted Greg to start this thread: that if you want a reasonable critique you ought to provide reasonable quality, remains entirely valid & ought, perhaps, to be the subject of a stricky that, in addition to explaining the purpose & processes of the forum, links folk to a range of proven sites/servers/services that can be updated as necessary.
 
Ummm, okay. This is the MP3 clinic, let's keep it about the music.

cheers,
 
Last edited:
Greg_L said:
I'd bet 99% of the users here can't tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and the source wav.
Click to expand...

Most studies have shown that even the most critical listeners can't easily tell from 192 and up.

Me? I can definitely pick out a 128k file, but at 160 it gets hard to tell.
 
I upload 192 mp3s to my free soundclick account, I don't hear a down conversion. If I go higher like in the 200s they won't even let me upload it. Just send me a cassette damn it!
 
I use soundclick as well (over 2,000 songs on it so far) and it is free. I upload my mp3's at 320k. If they go much over 3:30 in lenght it won't allow me to do it at that rate. Walter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top