MP3.COM - the end of our troubles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Slackmaster2K
  • Start date Start date
Slackmaster2K

Slackmaster2K

Gone
The idea that we upload to mp3.com is an interesting one.

On the upside, if we use MP3.COM exclusively, then we're done aside from getting some artwork. MP3.COM even allows a mix of data on the DAM CD so we can still upload our own information and whatnot.

It won't matter who joins the project and when they submit material. Someone will have to be in charge of adding new stuff to the DAM CD but otherwise it's 100% dynamic which is kinda cool.

It does kind of make sense I suppose. All of this deadline shit and keeping track of people and discussion on my part wasn't necessary, but that's no big deal.

The only downside I can see to using MP3.COM is that the best fidelity you can get is 128kbps MP3, even though DAM CD's combine CDA and MP3 files on one disk. Now I realize that most of the stuff submitted to the mixing clinic is in that format, so maybe it's not a big deal. Get a good MP3 encoder!

Slackmaster 2000
 
I think I have the best encoder here... It doesn't chew up the cymbals or anything... I dont remember exactly where I got it but its called "SoHo" encoder. Its slow as fudge but the results are great.
It is better than SCMPX.
 
Actually I think Dragon posted a link on the BB to a site that a bunch of free encoders and thats where I found SoHo... But I couldn't tell you which forum. It was a few months ago.
 
How would mp3.com handle the classification of such a diverse compilation? I've looked at their long list of categories and found none that fit this CD. Another thing that still bothers me is whether the .cda tracks on an mp3.com DAM CD will simply be .wav conversions of the 128Kbps mp3 files or full CD quality. And what methods are acceptable to mp3.com for submissions other than Internet uploads?
 
S8-N, thanks for the info. I'm using SCMPX now which was a LOT better than Blade at 128. I'll check out soho.

drstawl, we don't really have to categorize ourselves at mp3.com. That is, we don't have to play by the rules...doesn't hurt anything. We just setup a page for the CD and upload the songs, not worrying about classification.

The CD quality thing I mentioned is the main problem. They simply create the CD tracks by converting the MP3 files, which isn't that great. Music MUST be 128kbps...no more, no less. Somewhat limiting, really. They only allow submission of material via the web as far as I know.

Slackmaster 2000

[This message has been edited by Slackmaster2K (edited 01-15-2000).]
 
S8-N: Have you A/B'ed Vegas Pro vs. SoHo on the mp3 conversion front?

Slack: You're right about the classification
issue. But alot of the nuance of the work submitted here would be lost at 128Kbps. Let's not go there. We could always vote to create a crappier copy that mp3.com could market but it would be well worth it to create this from a CD quality compilation CD that would be available from H/R.com only.
The only really cool part of this idea is everyone submits their own tracks and nobody else has to sweat it. But the quality issue
is where I have doubts about the idea. I think most of the submitters, having worked hard on their stuff would be willing to go the extra mile for the CD quality version. Whaddaya think?
 
I just recently got a limited version of Vegas Pro and havent tried the MP3 encoder yet. In fact I havent used Vegas Pro at all yet. I have to wait untill I have a block of free time to get into it.
 
Layth: Not at all. Everyone here records in .wav format and that's what should be sent to the compiler of this CD. Several members, myself included have volunteered to transfer the .wav file you upload to Juston, X-drive, Click2send etc. to a CDR and mail it untouched by human (or feline) hands (or paws) to whomever is compiling this thing.
If that is just too much of a pain in the ass due to bandwidth restrictions I could add the .mp3 to .wav conversion before writing to CDR so you could decide what quality file you'd like to submit by adjusting the .mp3 sample rate. I'm thinking this CD should be a demo of what's possible in a home studio and that's better than mp3 quality.
 
Well, IMHO, this may actually be a simpler idea - We upload our own tunes and that's that... sure, there will be some inconsistant things going on with the CD, but that's the nature of such a diverse compilation... we can still assist each other in the forum with mix and sound quality problems. As far as WAVs being converted from the 128kbs bit rate, it's only "near CD quality" - but then again, I only consider my mixes to be near studio quality <big f'n grin> to begin with, so that's not a problem for me. Also, think about how easy it'll be to assemble future comps - just create a new DAM <DAMN> CD with the newly uploaded mixes and that's it.

Either way (CD or MP3.com), I'm in - I'm just not sure that there CAN be an outcome here that EVERYONE will be happy with.
- my 2 cents
 
Here's my 2 cents...I don't think we should go the mp3 route at all. If our goal was to just listen to a few tunes and leave it at that, mp3 would be fine. But to hear the nuances of our recordings, we should go without using lossy compression methods.

There are a number of us who have offered to compile all the tracks together for free. I am so convinced this is the way we should go, I would volunteer to do it as well. It would only require each of us to mail our tunes on a CD or cassette (I could even accept mini disc), and they would be mastered to CD. It really is that simple.

I think the legal and profit issues are mouse turds here. Are we really concerened about these things on this project? If the goal is for us to enjoy and learn from each other's work, we could agree to forget about any attempt to turn a buck and limit distribution to members of this board. Only charge would be for the cost of the CDs.

I belong to another Internet Home Recording group who are now on their seventh members' CD. They are using a system similar to what I've described, and things have gone smoothly thus far.

Again, my thoughts. I'm still on the bus for any direction we take.
Ranger
 
Gibs,

The reason mp3.com came up is that it would be an extremely easy way to handle the creation of the CD...not so much how to handle the uploading or submission process. Soon we will begin the submission phase and we'll decide on a means to get the whole thing put together. Until then, no need to worry, we won't exclude anyone.

All:

Personally I don't like the idea of using MP3.COM as a primary means of creating the CD. 128kbps quality is not very good...even if you use a good encoder it's still going to lack the original punch. I think we should leave the MP3.COM option open for other things...but for ourselves, let's burn a good CD.

Slackmaster 2000
 
CMiller,
The costs on the previous projects I mentioned ran from a low of $10 to a high $15 per member for a CD-R. Again, these weren't really mass produced...typically burned for those who contributed and the few extra board members who didn't contribute but wanted to buy a copy. Hope this helped!
Ranger
 
Well, what exactly is a DAM? I guess I could go to mp3.com and find out... What I do know is that a few friends and I locally distribute cds to each other of songs and they always sound better than the 128kbs mp3s we send. But I am up for anything.
 
Ok. Well I found out what DAM is all about. It sounds simple. Like I said, anything is fine with me, be it burned to CD and sent to someone, or uploaded to mp3.com.
 
I'm pretty new to computer recording and quality issues, and a lot of things mentioned I don't understand, but I know that I like the idea of recording, putting it on CD and sending it somewhere to have someone put them all on CD from members of this site, and then paying for the CD and listening to us. I do want good quality. I have tried downloading some songs and it takes so long sometimes. The quality seems pretty good, but not as good.
I guess I'm not sure what method to do. I think part of the learning experience is making the best recording, mix you can, and then putting it on the best medium you can. Then I know I did the best I could.
bobbo
 
Ranger:
You think legal matters are "mouse turds" for this project? How many people do you trust whom you've never met? How many people you have met?
 
As I've said in the Mastering Ground Rules post:

Isn't all this MP3.com stuff excluding some of us?
 
Maybe the people who have volunteered to do the extra work should really be the ones to decide which way to go on this subject. Then, when its decided, people who would like to contribute their music can. I don't care how a person records their music, if someone records using a tascam 4track on cassette thats really cool, I was doing that 4 months ago. But how would they send it in an mp3 format on the web?
I agree that everyone should have an opportunity to submit something if they want to. Cassette, DAT or CD, or mp3. I guess whatever works best for the person who wants to send something. I just want it on a CD to put it in the boombox, and listen to what you folks are doing. We should consider first, however, the people who are doing the extra work in putting the compilation together. I appreciate them taking the time to do this. So maybe they should decide first.
bobbo
 
Hey Ranger, what were the approximate costs of printing the other comp CD you talked about? I ask because for me, that's the only real obstacle I'm worried about. I can handle my own copyrights, I can handle the conversions and upload (albeit slow upload) of my music, but the cost of printing real CD's worries me a little. No need to worry about me bailing, I'm just curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top