Something I wish all of us music posters would do

And that’s post music in as high a fidelity as possible.

If you use Bandcamp, it would be AWESOME if we uploaded a wav file and then indicated this in our OP. I for one would use the wav download option (and if the song is truly worthy, keep it :sunglasses: ). For all others, it would be nice if it were 320kps mp3 or at least as high as possible.

I am desiring this because lately my ear is rejecting so many tunes posted here and I think it’s because they’re streaming at a relatively low bitrate.

Personally, I want my tunes to sound as good as possible, so I use the soundclick premium service which allows 320 kps mp3. I think bandcamp is a great alternative; although it streams at the horrid 128kps, wav download is possible (if you uploaded that format in the first place).

Don’t we want our tunes to sound as good as possible? I’m having trouble leaving relevant comments about many of our tracks here because so many are not sounding all that good, and I don’t know if it’s poor mixing (seriosuly doubt it), subpar equipment (again, serious doubts) or lossy encoding

Hi Doug

I agree that tunes should preferably be put up at the best quality possible for technical evaluation, but a good mix should still sound good if it’s a 128bit mp3 IMVHO. I have moved away from Bandcamp to Soundcloud for posting demo tunes because we don’t have any control over their file conversion to mp3. I have had issues with the quality of the Bandcamp (and other sites that resample) mp3 files when streamed but when I have downloaded the mix there has been no problem.

At Soundcloud I can upload in any format I want, even multiple formats of the same tune and make them available to stream or download. The ‘sets’ feature is useful for this, but it is a little more work uploading multiple files of the same tune. I also like the fact we get 120 minutes of music uploads for free regardless of format although I do have a ‘Lite’ account which gives me a couple of extra features and 240 minutes for just 29 Euros a year.

For me I like Soundcloud for demo tunes and Bandcamp for ‘released’ tunes.


Try wma windows media version 10.

File size is similar quality is better and can still be listened to on mac


Disregard some of what I said about Soundcloud. It seems that they resample files to 128kbps mp3 for streaming. :blush: Couldn’t make out why the 192kbps mp3 sounded different when I tried the stream. Downloads are in original format though.

Even though, I still find their streaming quality more consistant than Bandcamp. Just make sure you upload either wav files or 128kbps mp3’s to their site. I have several higher bit rate mp3’s upoaded there. I’m going to have to encode them to 128 or wav and upload again. :cry:

Hiya mr twilight!

Don’t we want our tunes to sound as good as possible?

Well, d’ya think?. :slight_smile: But if bitrate is the critical path then I’ve missed the point. Granted that the best audio / sonic quality is preferred under all circumstances then we should all post waves or equivalents. But, frankly, I’m not sure that degree of rigour is a pre-requisite to enable worthwhile opinions to be given here - which are mostly about arrangements, relative dynamaics, instrumentation, good song, indifferent song, intonation…

That said, as a listener (mostly) to classical through a reasonalble hi-fi, I too, abhor slackness in QA/QC in the sonics department.

Another consideration: those who are crazy-foolish to consider buying one of my CDs or highest-bitrate-possible downloands might be a bit reluctant if they knew that equivalent quality downloads had been available for free before. :exclamation:

Your’s aye!

I always post 256kb mp3’s. my converter doesn’t do smaller bitrates too well for some reason. I think some do a better job at lower bitrates than others

My understanding was that regardless of what format you uploaded to bandcamp, it streams at 128kps. I’ve posted 2 songs there that were unlistenable

Like said earlier, mp3 bit rate and the codec used do have a big effect on distortion and how track sounds.


If we were photographers, would we be okay with posting images we made that were blurry or distorted in some way? No. So why are we content to post music in formats that do the same thing to the sound?

It also makes it hard to critique a song, because if it sounds bad, you’re never sure if it’s

mp3 coding

But given that if a song has good performances on it you can largely discount #1, and given that today even average gear can sound quite good, the last option seems to be the usual suspect. Frankly I’m tired of saying sh1t like “It sounds bad but it’s probably an mp3 thing”

It does. It’s started in their FAQ.

Good idea, Doug!
My latest song is available in 128 kbps on Soundclick and in 320 kbps on my own website, instead of the 192 kbps I used to use.
I’m planning to put up new 320 kbps versions of all of my songs, when I can find the time… :wink:


As a matter of interest… can anyone, particularly folks of a similar vintage to me, hear much, if any difference between 192 and 320? I don’t think I can… well, maybe under very close A/B scrutiny I could spot the difference but I’m guessing that even if I could or thought I could, it would still be microscopically and insignificantly small… :confused:

Well, I’m not sure, but the lesser the bit compression the better, I would think… :slight_smile: