KVR Audio

vtx · Post by **vtx** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:46 pm

I've listened to many tunes from the guys at kvr and found them to be mostly great arrangements but often wishing they were higher quality mp3's.
I've never uploaded anything before but I think I have something to offer.
I'd just like to know if 320kps is uncool or is there a certain file size thats unacceptable?
Are they kept low for streaming purposes or so they can't be reused?

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:21 pm

Hi! vtx,

A lot of people absolutely hate mp3 at anything below 256 because of the loss of quality, though you will often find 128 because it’s smaller and also offers some protection against it being copied, a lot of commercial sites will take whatever you upload and convert it to 128, to save bandwidth mainly.

How you go about rendering your tunes is up to you, and your listeners – are they going to want to download 320? If they are really fantastic sounds – then yes they probably will.

As to files on audioshot, if you follow the guide lines in the threads and at the site, you should have no problems with 320 if that’s the road you wish to take.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:41 pm

I seriously think that 128 (or let that be 160, or maybe even 192) kbps is good enough to see if something is well done (by both technical and musical means).

In case you're getting a LOT of positive feedback, you may then post a higher bitrate version.
At least that's what I would do.

Apart from that, it has happened more than once that I've been downloading some high bitrate (256+) MP3s, sometimes even along with a note that this would be neccessary to maintain the sonic quality, just to find myself wondering in the end why "xyz.mp3" would sound so much better, even when only being encoded at 128.

vtx · Post by **vtx** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:00 pm

Gotcha! thanx ..I'll try some creative mastering at 160kps..vocals seem to suffer the most but posses an interesting experiment...

VariKusBrainZ · Post by **VariKusBrainZ** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:29 pm

Would it be possible to register with an Audioshot domain name and then change it at a later date?

Im going to be registering for the Top Shot

cheers

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:50 pm

Hi! CreepJoint,

With the audioshot sub domain names – there is no cpanel, as cpanel needs an actual domain name to work.

But if you sign up for an audioshot sub domain and later wish to go for the Top Shot, then this is a very easy transition.

What would happen is your old account would stay active while a new domain is registered on the main server – all files would be copied to this new domain, which would now be fully cpanel enabled, once the new domain name has resolved around the net, a redirection would be set up on your old account so for those visitors that had bookmarked you would automatically be taken to the new site, where they can then update their records.

If it was a full domain name, and you were moving up the packages, then the re-direction would not be necessary as the process of moving accounts is almost seamless to the viewer.

But in short – yep! You can upgrade an account at anytime, without loss of files and all moving and redirections would be done for you.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

VariKusBrainZ · Post by **VariKusBrainZ** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:27 am

Hi Spe3D,

thanks for that, although its irrelevant for us now (just got a domain name and bought the Top Shot package) is still useful info for others

Thanks for this service. Me and my Bro have been meaning to set up a site for ages, we were just too damn lazy. Never realised it could be so cheap, a total of about $39 or €31 for a .com domain name and hosting at Audioshot

bastien · Post by **bastien** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:39 am

vtx wrote:I'd just like to know if 320kps is uncool or is there a certain file size thats unacceptable?

Not wishing to provoke a flame war, you could try using WMA. It really is better than MP3 at the same bitrate. I guess the problem is mac/unix compatability.

OGG is better still - I really couldn't believe how good a 64kbit file sounded when I was trying it out!

Zoing · Post by **Zoing** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:17 am

This looks like a great place, I think I will take advantage of it soon, (when I learn how to use GoLive!!).

Regarding WMA files, I can usually play them on my Mac, as there is a windows media player for mac. Although, some sites WMA's don't work (like Sonic Garden), due to lack of concern/knowledge by the people who put that site together (I think)

Theres always AAC(mp4) encoding now that there's itunes for windows (and probably other players), its an open standard and comes from the people who made mp3, and is meant to sound.... Better!!!

The stuff at the itunes music store is that format but has DRM stuff added.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:19 am

vtx wrote:I've listened to many tunes from the guys at kvr and found them to be mostly great arrangements but often wishing they were higher quality mp3's.
I've never uploaded anything before but I think I have something to offer.
I'd just like to know if 320kps is uncool or is there a certain file size thats unacceptable?
Are they kept low for streaming purposes or so they can't be reused?

i tend to go for 128 because my stuff is generally quite large even at that rate

also i produce a lot and do actually get a lot of downloads so i guess it save space and bandwidth too

not arsed about it being ripped off,i dont think im that good yet

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:31 am

On a small sidenote (sorry in case it's too much OT):
I don't think MP3 is a bad format (especially since I need it for the car stereo ;o), but both WMA and OGG have their strong advances whenever you collaborate with someone. MP3-to-Wave conversion will result in some silence at the beginning of the converted file. Not THAT much but WAY enough to spill your timing all over the place. As a result of this you will allways have to spend quite some time lining up converted MP3s properly. Both WMA and OGG don't suffer from this problem.

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:36 pm

CreepJoint wrote:Hi Spe3D,

thanks for that, although its irrelevant for us now (just got a domain name and bought the Top Shot package) is still useful info for others

Thanks for this service. Me and my Bro have been meaning to set up a site for ages, we were just too damn lazy. Never realised it could be so cheap, a total of about $39 or €31 for a .com domain name and hosting at Audioshot

Hi! CreepJoint,

Many thanks for getting the TopShot package, as a thank you I have upped it to the SilverShot, which offers more, and was/is a tad hidden from the front page of the site.

I hope it fits your needs, any issues or questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

baggio · Post by **baggio** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:22 pm

I am interested in this but am completely ignorant when it comes to creating a website - any pointers will be gratefully received.

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:32 pm

Hi! Baggio,

I did a quick page with some pointers to places on the net that can help you understand html better, here

http://audioshot.com/modules.php?name=C ... page&pid=6

But if you had a cpanel package you could use FrontPage, or if not something like ezgenerator by ImageLine, where most of the site creation is done for you.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:25 pm

Hi again,

When it comes to website building, I'm a complete newbie (even if I tried one or the other time allready).
And, I also don't want to be any professional, so what I's like is a VERY simple WYSIWYG editor.
Right now I have been using Netscape Composer (yeah, I hear you laughing allready), but the latest version actually is even worse than 4.x (which is what I have been trying ages ago).
The thing per se is just up my alley as it's more or less completely WYSIWYG. But it misses some things:
- Frames (I'd only need a two framed site, nothing else).
- Easy ways to edit links, so that they may not be underlined or open in a new window - I snagged the appropriate HTML instructions of the web, but I'd rather prefer to do that in WYSIWYG mode as well.

I have allready tried Frontpage, Dreamweaver and some other things such as HotDog (if I remember correctly) and even Word, but some of them just produce a mess when you look at the HTML code (namely Frontpage and Word), others, such as Dreamweaver are way too complex for my needs.

Is there anything more simple, totally WYSIWYG but putting out a cleaner code than Frontpage and offering a bit more features than Netscape?
Really, I only need two frames and some options to edit things. No fancy JAVA, no Flash, no site managers, no nothing - I'll leave that to the experts.

TiA

AudioShot – Artist - free n cheap hosting