Need help...compressing MP3 files

[High Elbows]

I am trying to upload my music onto a website which allows only 5MB mp3 file. Most of my stuff is between 6 and 11MB.
Does anyone know a way to compress my files? I thought I might be able to do it with Audacity, but I can't seem to figure it out.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[danny.guitar]

MP3's are compressed files.

You'll need to select a lower bitrate. What bitrate are you using now?

128 KBPS is the standard for internet MP3s, but the quality sucks. So if you can got at least as high as 192 then that would be good.

 

[XLR]

Do you have the original wav file the mp3 was made from?

 

[High Elbows]

Do you have the original wav file the mp3 was made from?

It's one of my older demo CDs that I ripped into Windows Media as an MP3 file.

 

[High Elbows]

MP3's are compressed files.

You'll need to select a lower bitrate. What bitrate are you using now?

128 KBPS is the standard for internet MP3s, but the quality sucks. So if you can got at least as high as 192 then that would be good.

Well, I figured out how to use Audacity to export the file as an MP3 with a smaller bitrate..problem is, I had to take it down to 80kbps (the song is over 11 minutes long). It sounded o.k. when I played it with media player, but when I uploaded it onto the website it was completely "speeded up".
I don't know...

 

[Ford Van]

Well, I figured out how to use Audacity to export the file as an MP3 with a smaller bitrate..problem is, I had to take it down to 80kbps (the song is over 11 minutes long). It sounded o.k. when I played it with media player, but when I uploaded it onto the website it was completely "speeded up".
I don't know...

It probably assumed it was 128kbs and played it at that rate.

What website are you dealing with? If it is one of those "free song uploads" sites, it usually wants 128kbs files.

Who in the fuck writes 11 minute songs?

 

[kikkis]

Who in the fuck writes 11 minute songs?

Robert Rich wrote a 7 hour piece once...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, I figured out how to use Audacity to export the file as an MP3 with a smaller bitrate..problem is, I had to take it down to 80kbps (the song is over 11 minutes long). It sounded o.k. when I played it with media player, but when I uploaded it onto the website it was completely "speeded up".
I don't know...

You're going to have a *reeeeal* hard time finding a free public site that will let you stick 11-minute songs up there; the bandwidth just get's too expensive (Factiod: YouTube has to pay an estimated $2 million a month just for bandwidth costs alone).

I'd give you three valid choices (numbered in order of preference)

3.) Edit the song to create either an airplay-length version (that 6-minute drum masturbation can probably go away) or a demo version that fades out after a couple of minutes.

2.) Pick a shorter song.

1.) Get your own website.

G.

 

[High Elbows]

3.) Edit the song to create either an airplay-length version (that 6-minute drum masturbation can probably go away) QUOTE]


Tell that to the drummer!

Well, I guess there really are no other options.
Thanks for the input guys!

 

[bennychico11]

Who in the fuck writes 11 minute songs?

composers who know how to write more than just music for the average listener.
one of my favorite songs of all time is over 30 minutes long. and I love every minute of it.

 

[Mindset]

You're going to have a *reeeeal* hard time finding a free public site that will let you stick 11-minute songs up there; the bandwidth just get's too expensive (Factiod: YouTube has to pay an estimated $2 million a month just for bandwidth costs alone).

I'd give you three valid choices (numbered in order of preference)

3.) Edit the song to create either an airplay-length version (that 6-minute drum masturbation can probably go away) or a demo version that fades out after a couple of minutes.

2.) Pick a shorter song.

1.) Get your own website.

G.

Funny thing is that youtube is putting out a deal that will pay video producers money to post their stuff.... I don't know what's the rate or anything like that, but it's in the works. That number $2 million probably goes up few thousand tens of thousands per month as people start posting 3-4-5-20-50 videos each account. I wonder what type of servers & connection they have. Probably a few OC192 connections huh? Or at least 2 of those.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Funny thing is that youtube is putting out a deal that will pay video producers money to post their stuff.... I don't know what's the rate or anything like that, but it's in the works. That number $2 million probably goes up few thousand tens of thousands per month as people start posting 3-4-5-20-50 videos each account. I wonder what type of servers & connection they have. Probably a few OC192 connections huh? Or at least 2 of those.

That $2M/month is an estimate caclulated by some industry analysts based upon common rates and business practices in the Internet bandwidth industry. This estimate was quoted (in Time magazine's business section and the Wall Street Journal, if I remember correctly) back when the Google buyout of YouTube was announced and everybody was scratching their heads and pencils as to just what Google had in mind. YouTube would not confirm that figure or publically discuss their operating costs at all, but nothing I read from anybody cast any doubt that the figure was at least in the ballpark.

I wouldn't be suprised if the Google acquisition allowed/will allow Google to fold in the YouTube server and bandwidth resources - if not physically, at least financially - into Google's umbrella operation and get even a bit more of a "quantity discount". As to how much that would offset the increased YouTube usage like you describe that has happened since then, is a good question.

But the point is, bandwidth still costs money. This is why BBSs usually impose limits on the size of attachments and avatars and why most public shingle-hanging sites like MySpace and SoundClick impose limits on bitrates and file sizes.

G.