bapu


What would you have done if England lost?

Listen on these?

When you said you got a new set of cans, I thought you were talking about headphones.  

Good to see you got it resolved (sort of).

bapu


Good to see you got it resolved (sort of).

Yuh, sort of. You got that right Ed. I'm not sure about their transcoding process. It sounded pretty much the same as the original. I don't expect the waveform to be pictorialy accurate as it would appear in a Sonar track. I did detect some details missing. But once again, I don't think you can compare a track sent over the internet to a 24 bit track playing in Sonar over good monitors.
I sent them an old messy track done on tape ( low grade tape ) on purpose to see what the result would be. With their current problems with the dashboard and the upload page not getting a response from souncloud I'm not sure what to think. Having to use the old skool uploader to get a track up, makes me hesitate to buy a premium account. It seems that as usual in the music biz, the real thing is still reserved.
All in all I'd have to say, great job for a messed up track for free. I really think they should have their own sales-download facility embedded in soundcloud rather than going to a third party manager like DIY or another App in their gallery. Plus they want a label and registrations for sales. Makes it much harder to be an independent artist gaining access to a market.
I should get some Cakewalk-Sonar re-recorded Wav or AiFF tracks up soon to compare quality. And that doesn't even approach Mp3 quality, which is what should be there for the mobile market. Once again, I'll have to work on it.

bitflipper


I thought there'd be more curiosity about this topic, but I guess folks take the same attitude that I do: you get what you get when it's free of charge, so live with it.

FWIW, the samples I uploaded were as follows:
A: 192kb/s
B: 320kb/s
D: 44.1/16 PCM

So yes, Daryl, you guessed correctly. I don't think I would have been able to consistently pick out one from another, frankly. Was there something in particular that distinguished that one?

My takeaway from this unscientific experiment: put your files up as 320kb/s if you're going to allow others to download them, but for streaming there is little or no advantage to hassling with large wave files. And nobody's going to want to download your monster waves anyhow, so you may as well use MP3s for sharing. 

For that matter, 256kb/s is indistinguishable from 320 and is comparable to both commercial downloads and to content distributed to radio stations. 

Go on, try me again if you want :)
I picked that one out for the same reason that I redid my files @ 24 bit.
I heard the same anomoly on that file that I did on mine - maybe it's my monitors.
For Soundcloud, if the limit is on minutes not file size, why not upload the best quality available? I have a pretty fast connection and the upload took around 5 minutes - no big deal. I could get on with something else while it was uploading.

Well, I did discern a difference between the .wav and the other two, but my final comment turned out to be correct.  What made the .wav version sound softer must be the higher headroom (and, therefore, greater dynamics).  Hmm...

So anyway... I've been looking around Souncloud and I think it's a pretty good media for sharing music so far. The Facebook link started working correctly and whatever I listen to can be posted on my FB timeline. I would think they would want to post on the FB newsfeed as well. Trying to copy links and paste to the news feed did not work well. Some of the share and like links do not not put it on the newsfeed.
 I haven't really looked at many of the sharing-listening- selling sites for music, but so far it seems that if you want to have your music up front on the list, you have have to pay for it. You would think it would be a time regulated thing, but you get buried fast in the many listings that pop up everyday. So to advertise you'd have to post links all over the internet which would also get buried fast. Back to the battle.