Helpful ReplyMixing for internet music-hosting sites

Author
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
2009/07/19 14:11:06 (permalink)

Mixing for internet music-hosting sites

The recent silliness with SoundClick disabling the update feature sent me scrambling to find an alternative song-hosting service. I don't want to create my own website, that's too much work. I don't really want to pay for the hosting, at least not the $120 per year that SoundClick wants. So I started auditioning sites, comparing features and prices, and evaluating sound quality for both downloaded files and songs played via their provided streaming players.

I got some help from julibee, who had begun experiments of her own by uploading songs to a couple alternate sites. Having the same song on multiple sites allowed for a subjective comparison of playback quality. She was kind enough to send me an uncompressed wave of the test song so I could hear what it was supposed to sound like before encoding, re-encoding and downsampling.

I then used Streamosaur to capture audio as it was being played back from different sites. I could then load the captured 44.1/16 file into Audition and check frequency distribution, amplitude statistics and phase, in an attempt to obtain at least some degree of objectivity.

While I'd love to assemble a detailed list of song-hosting sites, that was clearly going to be too time-consuming, so I concentrated on just a handful of sites:
SoundClick
ReverbNation
PureVolume
MySpace
Audio Street
Boost Independent Music

Not a comprehensive list, but I had to start somewhere. SoundClick had pissed me off, and I was kind of in a hurry to find a suitable substitute because I was in the process of experimenting with techniques for optimizing mastering for MP3 distribution. That meant tweaking, uploading and playing back repeatedly, and SoundClick was not allowing file updates.

The first reality check was disheartening: all of the free song hosting sites make your tunes sound worse, sometimes drastically, embarassingly worse. Sometimes they were merely exaggerating flaws in the mix, which is actually a good thing. But often they mangled things so badly it actually added new sounds that you did not put in there!

Julibee's song ("Blue Water") turned out to be a good test, because it contains a lot of high-frequency content. (Too much, actually. At least too much for MP3; the wave sounded much better.)

MP3 encoding has its own issues regardless of where you're going to store them or stream them. (I explored this somewhat in a previous post.)

Here are four tips that will help if you're posting to a hosting site that does not stream your songs at the original rate (meaning anything short of your own website):

First of all, use the highest-quality encoding option you can that still yields a file under the site's maximum size (10MB for SoundClick free accounts). The site will re-encode it to a lower standard (128 kb/s CBR for SoundClick free accounts), but the result will still be better than if you had sent them a low-bitrate file to begin with. Even if you upload a 128kb/s CBR file, they still re-encode it, to the detriment of the sound quality.

Second, leave plenty of headroom when you master your song. A minimum of 1db, with 3db being preferable. This is a good idea anytime your target is MP3, but it's especially important when your files are going to end up being re-encoded to a low bitrate or streamed at a low bitrate. If you're curious about why this is so important, refer to my previous post.

Third, accept the fact that your streamed MP3 will exhibit aliasing and high-frequency truncation and use a low-pass filter when you master. Even a high-quality MP3 chops off everything above 16KHz, so there is no point in even having any content up there. But if it's re-encoded to a lower bitrate (MySpace streams at 96kb/s, roughly equivalent to a 22.5KHz sample rate) there will almost certainly be nasty aliasing and lousy frequency response above 10KHz. Better that you decide where to chop off the high end and do so aggressively. Sure, your song will be lacking in "sparkle", but a dull sound is still preferable to aliasing, which sounds really nasty.

Aliasing artifacts will be more apparent in some components within your song than others. Cymbals and hats are especially troublesome, as are acoustic guitars. Consider aggressively rolling off highs from those instruments to lessen the overall impact of aliasing. Hats in particular can be rolled off a lot and still perform their role; you might want to set the lowpass knee as low as 6-8KHz.

I'm still experimenting with this stuff, but it looks like a lowpass filter across the mains set to between 11Khz and 14Khz will go a long way toward reducing the effects of aliasing on low-bitrate sites. Of course, you'll probably want to adjust other instruments within your mix to compensate, such as giving them a bit of midrange boost so the mix doesn't sound too dull.

The last bit of advice: avoid overcompression. By that, I mean the use of a limiter as opposed to file compression. Music with very limited dynamic range suffers more at the hands of MP3 encoders because it has less fine detail and cannot afford to lose what subtleties might be there. For aggressive rock genres, shoot for an average RMS of around -10db or so. You'll still get a nice fat sound, although maybe not quite up to the high standards of experienced professionals such as Metallica. For gentler genres, keep it down to -14db or less for average RMS.

So have I found a suitable replacement for SoundClick? In a word, No. Of all the sites I tested, SoundClick's player offered better playback quality than nearly all the others. Some, such as ReverbNation and MySpace, were, IMO, unlistenably bad. The good news is that SoundClick has reinstated the file update feature, so it looks like they'll remain my home for a while.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#1
bayoubill
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10899
  • Joined: 2009/04/27 06:11:12
  • Location: Shreveport Louisiana
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/19 16:16:26 (permalink)
The 1st song I recorded on Sonar 8 when I 1st got it was using my classical guitar. I didn't write down any settings but just went for the cleanest sound I could get.Then I added hall reverb and the recording sounded great,to me anyway. Because it was the 1st recording I don't have any idea what I actually did but I haven't been satisfied with any sound on the acoustic guitar since. When I made the MP3 and uploaded to soundclick I noticed it was a little muddy but still sounded OK. That was with 1 instrument. When I added more songs with more instruments and put on effects etc. then converted to MP3 there was quite a big difference in sound quality. I'd listen to my wav. file then soundclick version an was amazed by the change. The mix itself was different sometimes. Like the panning didn't go though to the MP3 and such as that. Since I'm not Pro I can't justify spending money on posting quality recordings and I've already spent enough on the sequencer, keyboards, and audio interface. I don't have the background or experience in this type of recording so for the time being I record what I play and am happy with that.

Thanks for posting this info. I learn more and more everyday and that makes for better decisions on what to in the future.

SWAMP MUSIC
Sonar PLATINUM        
Studio Cat DAW
 
 
      
  
 
#2
SteveStrummerUK
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 31112
  • Joined: 2006/10/28 10:53:48
  • Location: Worcester, England.
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/19 17:28:04 (permalink)

Thanks for that Dave - as always, it's really appreciated when you share your research and conclusions.

 Music:     The Coffee House BandVeRy MeTaL

#3
Mamabear
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8954
  • Joined: 2006/12/01 18:03:09
  • Location: Missouri
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/19 21:39:32 (permalink)
Thanks a lot, Dave!!
#4
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 975
  • Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/20 01:32:13 (permalink)
I wonder how You Tube measures up. Things will sometimes sound quite good from there.
#5
geobert
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 75
  • Joined: 2008/01/30 23:46:31
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/20 01:41:51 (permalink)
Thanks Dave. Especially thanks for the suggestion of uploading to SoundClick at the highest quality. It really works. I had a song that sounded awful on SoundClick when I uploaded it at 128k, but when I uploaded at 320k and let them downgrade it to 128k, it sounded fine.

Another hosting site you may want to consider is GarageBand. They allow 192k files for free. The song sounded fine at 192k. Uploading updated songs is a hassle, but not impossible (you must send them an email and request to delete the old song and then you can upload the update).
#6
rstollen
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1561
  • Joined: 2008/03/12 16:20:25
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/20 02:10:00 (permalink)
Hi Marah,

I agree with you about the YouTube videos sounding pretty good. But then I would download one and extract just the audio from it, and oh my gosh, it's awful. I think I get fooled because I'm actually watching a video and not just listening to the track.

8.5.1 PE, i7 920, GA-EX58-UD4P, 6gb Corsair DDR3, 2 x Barracuda 500gb, HIS Radeon GS-4670 Fanless 1gb DDR3, XP Pro SP3, dual 24" monitors, Axiom 61, Korg Triton Pro, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, VG-99, Yamaha MSP5, Fostex PM0.5
#7
dlogan
Max Output Level: -50 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2544
  • Joined: 2006/02/17 09:34:16
  • Location: Kansas City, Missouri
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/20 11:07:41 (permalink)
Nice work, Dave! Thanks for sharing. I applied some of these techniques to an updated MP3 I uploaded to Mixposure last night ("Left Undone") and it seemed to have made a difference. I didn't do the LPF EQ, but will experiment with that some...

I'm thinking I'm going to end up keeping my soundclick page but also upgrade on Mixposure from the free account.

#8
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/20 11:30:09 (permalink)
Another hosting site you may want to consider is GarageBand. They allow 192k files for free. The song sounded fine at 192k. Uploading updated songs is a hassle, but not impossible (you must send them an email and request to delete the old song and then you can upload the update).


I have just added Garageband to my growing list. You're right, the sound quality of the player is quite good, at least equal to SoundClick's.

When evaluating players, I try to find songs with prominent hats and cymbals, as they will exhibit the worst aliasing. I heard almost no artifacts even on rock tunes with the standard half-closed hi-hat smash going on - most of the time. To hear examples of both good and bad, go to the "Rock" category and listen to "Mix It Up" and "Weekend Full of Weekends". The former has almost no aliasing, the latter has noticeable artifacts on the hats and cymbals. Maybe it was uploaded as a lower bitrate file.

I was also impressed by the musical quality of the small sampling of tunes I listened to. (Check out the "Folk" category, which has some particularly impressive pieces.)

geobert, how do the charts work on Garageband, do you know?

Too bad about the update policy, though. That kind of makes it a deal-killer for folks like me who frequently update files.
post edited by bitflipper - 2009/07/20 11:49:18


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#9
glen55
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 229
  • Joined: 2009/03/12 16:52:36
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/20 12:57:06 (permalink)
Great post! It goes straight into my digital reference library.

Thanks much.
post edited by glen55 - 2009/07/20 13:30:31

The Beatles, Sinatra, Elton John, Zappa, Steely Dan, Howlin' Wolf, Pink Floyd, Al Green, ELO,  Nickelback, at the moment. Yourself?
#10
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 16775
  • Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
  • Location: Bristol, UK
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/21 05:19:40 (permalink)
Good work Bit - both for the original heads up and your research.

Another one to try out might be Mixposure. (formerly iMusicscene)

CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughout
Custom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
#11
AL 321
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 121
  • Joined: 2009/04/28 12:48:35
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 21:32:53 (permalink)
Edited
post edited by AL 321 - 2009/11/13 20:07:44

#12
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 21:49:40 (permalink)
<quote>Reverbnation let me upload at 192kbps or something like that, and it sounds much better. </QUOTE>

I am only comparing free accounts. Does ReverbNation allow 192kb/s to a free account?

I wouldn't use even a very bright bass as a test for aliasing, since it's unlikely to have any appreciable content above 10KHz where the problems begin. I am heading up to hear your song now...

OK, I'm back. Alex, sorry but this particular song is really not a very good test for aliasing. It's 100% electronic with a fair amount of distortion. The problem is that I don't have any way of knowing what the bass is supposed to sound like!

And the truth is, maybe playback quality isn't as crucial for electronica as for, say, acoustic folk music.

post edited by bitflipper - 2009/07/22 22:01:41


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#13
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 22:06:48 (permalink)
Another one to try out might be Mixposure. (formerly iMusicscene)


Yeh, I've poked around Mixposure, too. Wasn't impressed with the sound quality of the default player.

What are the limits/costs of your account there?

The first tune you linked to there is a particularly good test, with nice bright hats in it. Unfortunately, I hear a lot of aliasing on those hats. Great tune, though!
post edited by bitflipper - 2009/07/22 22:11:54


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#14
AL 321
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 121
  • Joined: 2009/04/28 12:48:35
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 22:11:55 (permalink)
Yeah my Reverbnation account is free, and they allow up to 8mb. I just looked at one of my songs i still have on my desktop, and it's 192kbps, length is 04:23, and it's 6.02mb, so you could probably get a higher bitrate on there. Is 224 the next up?
I know some of my tracks are 6 or 7 mins, so i often need to go down to 160kbps.

You're probably right about that electronica being more forgiving, though. But seriously, if you heard the 128 version of that track... it actually sounded offensive to me. Did you try uploading a higher bitrate before, or didn't you know you could go higher than 128?

#15
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 22:15:07 (permalink)
AL 321

Yeah my Reverbnation account is free, and they allow up to 8mb. I just looked at one of my songs i still have on my desktop, and it's 192kbps, length is 04:23, and it's 6.02mb, so you could probably get a higher bitrate on there. Is 224 the next up?
I know some of my tracks are 6 or 7 mins, so i often need to go down to 160kbps.

You're probably right about that electronica being more forgiving, though. But seriously, if you heard the 128 version of that track... it actually sounded offensive to me. Did you try uploading a higher bitrate before, or didn't you know you could go higher than 128?


You may have a 192kb/s file on your desktop, but the site may have re-encoded it. What you'd have to do to find out what it's really playing back at is to download it from the site.
post edited by bitflipper - 2009/07/22 22:19:40


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#16
AL 321
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 121
  • Joined: 2009/04/28 12:48:35
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 22:19:24 (permalink)
hmm, i see. They give us a size limit, but they don't tell us there's a bitrate limit.
Well, whatever they did, it was a much better job than i got at 128.

Thanks for the info though. Maybe i'll look into that stream thing.

#17
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 22:23:46 (permalink)
AL 321

hmm, i see. They give us a size limit, but they don't tell us there's a bitrate limit.
Well, whatever they did, it was a much better job than i got at 128.

Thanks for the info though. Maybe i'll look into that stream thing.


Never mind what I said about Streamosaur - it captures it as a wave, which won't tell you anything useful.

Here's how it works at SoundClick (for a free account): no matter what format you upload, they re-encode it to 128kb/s. There is a 10Mb size limit. Experimentation has shown that if you upload a higher-quality MP3 it will degrade less during the re-encoding than if you had simply sent them a 128kb/s file to begin with. I routinely send 192kb/s files to SoundClick -- if they come out under the 10Mb limit, if not then like you I have to encode them at a lower quality. But no matter what I send them, it gets played back at 128kb/s.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#18
AL 321
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 121
  • Joined: 2009/04/28 12:48:35
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/22 22:32:22 (permalink)
Ok, well need to log out now, but tomorrow i'll try and load a 320kbps version of that song into Soundclick and see what happens. Hopefully, if you are right, it should get rid of that horrid noise.
Though i suppose you never really know with electronica, that bass has a lot 14k+ info in it, and different sites use different encoders. But i'll have a go and report back.

Thanks.

#19
geobert
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 75
  • Joined: 2008/01/30 23:46:31
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 00:14:40 (permalink) ☄ Helpful
Hi Dave, sorry for the delayed response. GarageBand has an interesting charting mechanism. After reviewing a number of songs (15 pairs for non-paid accounts), you are allowed to enter one of your own songs for ranking. I haven't yet reviewed enough songs for ranking of my own songs, but basically it works by pairing. A reviewer must choose between two songs and the song that wins has a chance to move up the charts. Furthermore, a review must be written for each song.
 
One nice thing about this over SoundClick, is that you get written feedback about what people like or don't like about your song (and you as the songwriter also get to rank the reviewers, similar to ranking sellers on e-bay). However, the Cakewalk forums offer very good feedback, so SoundClick + Cakewalk > GarageBand (except for the sound quality).
#20
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 11:26:30 (permalink)
GarageBand has an interesting charting mechanism. After reviewing a number of songs (15 pairs for non-paid accounts), you are allowed to enter one of your own songs for ranking.


There is another site that does the same kind of thing, but I don't remember which one it is.

I like the approach for two reasons: first, it's hard to stuff the ballot box, and second, it's more objective and consistent.

It's more objective because it's much easier to judge whether A is better than B than it is to give a star or numerical rating. Ask your friends and relatives what they think of your CD and you will not get useful responses. But ask them which song they like best on the CD, and the responses will be surprisingly consistent.

I also like the audio quality on GarageBand.

Unfortunately, it's not a direct replacement for SoundClick because it has a different mission. SoundClick is a great place to stash your tunes and let people listen to them. I've used it to post two versions of the same song for comparison. Others have posted snippits of songs to illustrate some technique or problem. GarageBand doesn't seem to be the ideal platform for that sort of thing, especially given the difficulty of updating songs.

But for a serious band looking for exposure, GarageBand seems a pretty good choice.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#21
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 11:33:01 (permalink)
tomorrow i'll try and load a 320kbps version of that song into Soundclick


Please do that, Alex, and give us links so we can compare them.

You may find that the song is truncated on playback, though. When I've inadvertently sent files over 10Mb to SoundClick, the site did not complain. It was only on playback that I discovered that the song stopped abruptly before the end. SoundClick has simply truncated the file to 10Mb. Still, even a truncated file will suffice to test the concept.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#22
Mamabear
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8954
  • Joined: 2006/12/01 18:03:09
  • Location: Missouri
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 11:44:53 (permalink)
Dave, have you looked into CDBaby.com?
#23
AL 321
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 121
  • Joined: 2009/04/28 12:48:35
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 13:18:08 (permalink)
Edited
post edited by AL 321 - 2009/11/13 20:06:07

#24
Philip
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4062
  • Joined: 2007/03/21 13:09:13
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 13:41:29 (permalink) ☄ Helpful
This is truly a great post for me!
 
Take-home for me:
1) focus more on the mids
2) Leave 3 to 10x more headroom in the master than my usual (not just 0.3 dcbs)
3) Tone down (LPF) the hats, cymbals, acoustics and other 10+kHz sparklers
4) Go easy on the master-limiter.
5) Keep down the RME values.
6) Produce MP3s at '192' or higher when possible.

Philip  
(Isa 5:12 And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD)

Raised-Again 3http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=12307501
#25
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 14:10:22 (permalink)
I applied some of these techniques to an updated MP3 I uploaded to Mixposure last night ("Left Undone") and it seemed to have made a difference.


I just got around to listening to your Mixposure song, Dave.

The guitars sound really good. You can still hear some subtle artifacts here and there, in particular on vox, the mandolin lead, and the snare tail. But there isn't a whole lot of other high-frequency content in the song to trip up the encoding algorithm. I guess that's the very definition of a song that's well-suited to MP3 distribution: not much happening in the very high end of the frequency spectrum.

Nice tune, too!

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the file after you've upgraded your account, which presumably will mean they'll not mess with your file at all.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#26
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re:Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 14:13:26 (permalink)
This is truly a great post for me! Take-home for me: 1) focus more on the mids 2) Leave 3 to 10x more headroom in the master than my usual (not just 0.3 dcbs) 3) Tone down (LPF) the hats, cymbals, acoustics and other 10+kHz sparklers 4) Go easy on the master-limiter. 5) Keep down the RME values. 6) Produce MP3s at '192' or higher when possible.


Well-summarized, Philip! I am incapable of stating anything succinctly. Next time, I'll just email you my post and you can turn it into a nice set of bullet points! :)


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#27
spacey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8769
  • Joined: 2004/05/03 18:53:44
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/23 14:20:47 (permalink)
Dave,
Out of these you listed, these three SoundClick, ReverbNation and MySpace seem to be what I see the most used with the addition of Mixposure.

As I have found Mix to be the choice for sound quality I'm curious why it wasn't included in your quest. That is not all I favored over others but it was priority for me.

Best,
Michael
 
Sorry...missed some of the posts.

#28
Mamabear
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8954
  • Joined: 2006/12/01 18:03:09
  • Location: Missouri
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/25 19:31:06 (permalink)
Dave, I just updated a song on soundclick and it let me do it.  But only if I used the new band administration page.  (I've been using the old one cause the new one looks intimidating.)  Anyway, it said I would lose today's points, but that's all.  So, at least that's been reinstated, thankfully.  
#29
auto_da_fe
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1866
  • Joined: 2004/08/04 21:32:18
  • Status: offline
RE: Mixing for internet music-hosting sites 2009/07/25 21:47:06 (permalink)
Bit - great thread, I have forwarded this some of my reaper friends as this information is DAW agnostic.

JR

HP DV6T - 2670QM, 8 GB RAM,
Sonar Platypus,  Octa Capture, BFD2 & Jamstix3, Komplete 10 and Komplete Kontrol
Win 10 64 
SLS PS8R Monitors and KRK Ergo
https://soundcloud.com/airportface
#30
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1