The MP3 Clinic is obsolete in one respect.

  • Thread starter Thread starter 60's guy
  • Start date Start date
6

60's guy

Guest
It should be renamed the Wave Clinic

There’s nothing worse than listening to 128 kb mp3 files that suck the life out of original music.

320 kb isn’t much better.

I’ll go out on a limb here and post two files of a song that I recorded with my daughter a few years ago.

“Resist” mp3 file

https://www.box.com/s/pcmy1b6odz6ewlsskyvb

“Resist” wave file

https://www.box.com/s/uzotpwykpnpya17abfeh


As bad as my ears are….I can hear a difference.

I see no reason that everyone shouldn’t be taking advantage of how easy it is to host and post wave files in lieu of posting mp3 files.
 
I agree, except a 320 kb/s MP3 is plenty adequate and like ten times smaller than it's corresponding wav.
 
Greg_L said:
I agree, except a 320 kb/s MP3 is plenty adequate and like ten times smaller than it's corresponding wav.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that 320 is more than adequate for the majority of listeners and I can accept that to be the norm.

My hearing loss is getting worse.

I'm feeling like I should aplogize for being almost deaf.
 
60's guy said:
I'm sure that 320 is more than adequate for the majority of listeners and I can accept that to be the norm.

My hearing loss is getting worse.

I'm feeling like I should aplogize for being almost deaf.
Click to expand...

The sonic difference between 128 and 320 is huge. the sonic difference between 320 and a wav is much less.
 
Greg_L said:
The sonic difference between 128 and 320 is huge. the sonic difference between 320 and a wav is much less.
Click to expand...
Since when does sonics (speed of sound) have relevance to recording quality?
 
60's guy said:
Since when does sonics (speed of sound) have relevance to recording quality?
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said "audible". Or dumbed it down even further for you into "what your ears hear".

Sleep it off, Randy. It's only monday.
 
son·ic   [son-ik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to sound.
2.
noting or pertaining to a speed equal to that of sound in air at the same height above sea level.

I'm perfectly happy with the sonic quality of 320 mp3 files for the purposes of this forum.
 
Gotta make compromises with quality if you want people to listen. I won't open a wav file. Don't have the patience for the download time.
Also most people host their wav's on some obscure download site that I hate to visit.
 
I'd be happier with FLAC when listening to people I know/trust/respect.
It's fine to take a little time & download allocation when it's for those folk.
When it's a newbie, someone I don't know or has a dubious reputation I'd rather a streamer so there's less time and danger - it's also a way to get to know them easily.
320 is far, far, far better than 128 or the stuff in between.
.wav files are great, I use them when sending mix, collab or other important files and do tha off forum with several members.
 
rayc said:
I'd be happier with FLAC when listening to people I know/trust/respect.
It's fine to take a little time & download allocation when it's for those folk.
When it's a newbie, someone I don't know or has a dubious reputation I'd rather a streamer so there's less time and danger - it's also a way to get to know them easily.
320 is far, far, far better than 128 or the stuff in between.
.wav files are great, I use them when sending mix, collab or other important files and do tha off forum with several members.
Click to expand...

i listen to lots of peoples stuff,i much prefer listening to home material ... any rare gems i do find i pass on to some friends of mine ... 99.9% of the time if its a download i wont bother or will wait and read others comments before listening ...

i much prefer streaming,all soundcloud,soundclick and more recently the box (host your .wav they stream an mp3 version) links get a listen,if the tracks particularly bad i can close it with no saved files cluttering my pc ... and there's a bloody lot of those :P

Chili said:
Gotta make compromises with quality if you want people to listen. I won't open a wav file. Don't have the patience for the download time.
Also most people host their wav's on some obscure download site that I hate to visit.
Click to expand...

i hate facebook type sites with long pages that take forever to load,if they don't load within say 20 seconds *without* wanting me to upgrade my shitty flash pluggin they get fooked off




We (a few of us on another forum) have tested a .wavs against .mp3 uploads and what gets changed when we get it back,some sites out there can murder a track ... but

1) if you want it listened to then stream the simplest way possible,make sure there's a valid email on "that" page,keep that account up to date ... sometimes it can be murder linking back to the original thread from where it was linked

2) anyone that is interested in you can request the .wav (if you have download disabled or not available)

edit-

3) DO NOT troll a website posting your links in multiple threads its bloody irritating and makes you look like an arrogant asshole which gets you get foooked off ...

4) if you put links in your sig make sure its the best hookyest track you got,doesn't have to be the best recorded,if you change the track put "my latest track" or something with its name or/and date that is memorable,i listen to those while reading some threads,but if i think i already heard it ...
 
Last edited:
60's guy said:
I see no reason that everyone shouldn’t be taking advantage of how easy it is to host and post wave files in lieu of posting mp3 files.
Click to expand...

Yeah...WAV files are certainly better, but it's also about file size and download times, not mention MP3 portability via players.

I just uploaded a song to the MP3 Clinic. The WAV file size was over 56MB, but the 320 MP3 is only 12MB, and I think 320 MP3 files are quite acceptable under the circumstances.
 
Nothing wrong with 320kbps mp3 in my opinion. After all, they are being uploaded to someones server, and a wav file does take up a hell of alot more drive space! not to mention speed of upload/download/streaming too.
Just my opinion:listeningmusic:
 
That's why I usually try to upload an mp3 and a flac simultaneously. Most people will be fine with the mp3, and the hardcore audiophiles who want lossless will know how to deal with a flac.
 
Call me crazy, but most people post songs to get mix feedback or song feedback. I don't think for a majority of us file size has much bearing on the answers we seek. However, a 128mp3 does sound bad. But in my opinion, the issues in the mix can still be properly identified, and the OP can get the answers/help they are seeking. There is the issue of you guys with great ears not wanting to listen to a poor sounding format. I totally get that. I think there should be instructions for OP's that if they would like feedback from some of the most discerning ears in this forum, they should post at least a 320mp3.
 
Nobody's going to tell me that a 320mp3 file "sucks". Like Greg said, it's much closer to a wav than it is to a 128mp3.

320 is just fine.
 
I agree on the 320 Rami. hell 128 still sounds better than most fm radio stations to me. Who knows. When I was a kid i used to listen to shit on a mono portable am radio and good songs were still 'good'
 
I have to correct what I had originally posted. 320 is better than 128 and it is closer to what a wave file sounds like......to my ears.

I shouldn't have said that 320 files suck. My apologies.

I understand that it takes longer to download a wave file, but the files I posted for comparison were both click and play files.
 
I'm hard pushed alot of the time to spot the difference between a 320 and Wav file with my own stuff!
Streaming music on the net isn't really practical in wav format, and especially as 320mp3 sounds so good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top