One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[evo2slo]

True the upload will take longer, but the use of wavs would anyway just be an option.

If using wavs is just an option (I missed that earlier) then I think this rule is a no-brainer. People should be able to upload whatever they want. Already some do 128, some do 256, some do 320, etc etc so why not wav - especially if V'ger is willing to encode them for the archive download. I also think flac should be an option if V'ger doesn't mind converting that format too.

Maybe would be helpful if in the submission post the uploaded file type is listed along with plug and host info.


Regardless, I will be redoing my test taking IrionDaRonin's and V'gers suggestions into account. Am curious to hear differences for myself. I'm at work now but will try to get to it later.

[V'ger]

If using wavs is just an option (I missed that earlier) then I think this rule is a no-brainer. People should be able to upload whatever they want.

Only thing was that downloads before deadline and the mp3 zip file is up will be large, but it seems clear now most aren't doing that anyway, so yea it seems that way.

Converting all files after deadline is of course a breeze, only thing mp3 tags won't be there but I guess you can all live with that? I might do it manually if I have the time or energy, but that would probably not happen every time.

Flac would of course be fine too. I think the rule would simply be: 'Submissions uploaded in any format you choose to SoundCloud'.

[evo2slo]

Okay, another test. This time I went for a busier mix and added in some acoustic drum samples over the microtonic drums to get some real cymbals in there. I added two Tyrell instances, featuring presets from the one and only PocVecem PV - Fatinsky Bass for a little low end and PV - Influx for a pad sound which I added some tremolo and a lot of high end eq boost.

Not the maxed out type of mix V'ger was referring to, and not the type of pad IrionDaRonin suggested, but I'm tired and this is all I've got in me tonight...

Here's the soundcloud set with the secret encodings:
http://soundcloud.com/evo2slo/sets/encoding-test-2


and here are the original files:
@128
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10032304/encodi ... %20128.mp3

@320
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10032304/encodi ... %20320.mp3

@wav 24bit, 48khz
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10032304/encodi ... %20wav.wav


Answers will be revealed in 72 hours.

[pocvecem]

Yeah, I love it when you use my presets to prove that something sounds bad!


I think you can hear it best with real drums, especially hihats and cymbals. Or take the preset PV - Robotnik from Tyrell. Those spikes (transients from the filter/reso) almost disappear after mp3 encoding.

My suggestion: 16 Bit/44,1 wav converting to flac. No sound loss and 50% less data.

[bzur]

My suggestion: 16 Bit/44,1 wav converting to flac. No sound loss and 50% less data.

Does soundcloud accept this format?

[SELF REPLY]: yes! "We support AIFF, WAVE, FLAC, OGG, MP2, MP3, AAC files."

[evo2slo]

Yeah, I love it when you use my presets to prove that something sounds bad!

Well, I can make just about any preset sound bad... so don't let it go to your head.

Here's my third and final test. pocvecem's soundcloud busting presets make another appearance in a pathetic attempt at 'The Robots' (Uh oh, they're baaaaaaack! This time they're armed with skull piercing transients. Better fire up that synth bzur we're going to need lots of healing.)
Presets used: PV-Robotnik and PV-Unison Bass with some reverb for lead part. Microtonic again for drums.

This time I threw in an extra wav with -3db headroom just for comparison.


Here are the original files:
@128
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10032304/encodi ... %20128.mp3

@320
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10032304/encodi ... %20320.mp3

@wav 24bit 48khz
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10032304/encodi ... %20wav.wav

@wav 24bit 48khz -3db extra headroom
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10032304/encodi ... 20-3db.wav


Here are the top secret encodings: http://soundcloud.com/evo2slo/sets/encoding-test-3

Answers will be revealed in 58 hours...

[evo2slo]

I don't think many are going to guess, so I'll just reveal the answers now in case it will be useful to anyone. I was a little by the differences. I initially thought they would all be indistinguishable from each other.

In all the tests A=128, B=320, C=wav, and obviously D=wav -3db.

I thought it was interesting how poorly 320 fared in comparison to both 128 and wav. Big drop-off in quality for some reason. Will definitely change the way I upload from now on.

Though common sense makes me think that the fewer stages of compression a file goes through the better it will sound, I preferred A in all of the tests. Maybe because it's a little louder. I really didn't hear any more detail in the wav encodes than in the 128. I find this all very strange. It's obviously been heavily compressed when compared to the original, so it's not like it's bypassing the transcoding stage. It would never occur to me to make an mp3 out of another mp3, but maybe what IrionDaRonin was saying earlier about it having a shorter distance to get to where it's going is what makes the difference.

Or maybe because it's easier on the soundcloud servers to host 128 mp3s they purposefully shifted the transcoding process to favor that format? And to think they almost got away with it!

I don't have the sharpest ears so I'm curious if anyone thinks A was not always the best sounding?

@V'ger: Is it possible that when you noticed the improvement to wav it was in comparison to a higher quality mp3 than 128? There's no doubt that wav is far superior to 320.

[V'ger]

I always thought SoundCloud left 128kbs alone as that is their default format for the player so I uploaded in that format, but I now know that absolutely everything is converted.

Lately I noticed some of the better sounding OSC entries were in 320kbs so last comps I've done that, but still doesn't sound good. I'm now beginning to think that part of the problem is that I uploaded in 48khz sample rate as that's what i work at, so maybe best is 44/16 wav or flac with some headroom is the best. I can't remember exactly the mp3 format I used for my test, but I tried flac too and couldn't hear any difference to that and wav (as you would expect). I think to hear the differences one should really use a track one knows very well and try various settings with that.

But I think if we should change this rule, maybe do it straight away so z3ta tracks sound their best?

Another option is that Archive.org will allow public uploads directly to our page, but only after having 50 items there. As it is now, one item is one competition which means years to reach that from the 30 we have now, but one could always get creative and make collections like winning songs etc etc to reach that number faster.. Drawback is no player on the OSC site, only a link to the archive.org's site where there's a player.

[evo2slo]

I work at 48khz too, hadn't really thought about sample rate or the bit rate as a factor but it makes sense it would be.

I'm actually thinking now that the reason 128 sounds better than 320 is the extra high and low end information. When the soundcloud encoder filters them out it ends up affecting the entire frequency range. Best method may actually be to put extreme high and low end filters on the final mix before uploading. Would be interesting to try that method with a wav or flac - but I'm all tested out at this point...

[evo2slo]

Another option is that Archive.org will allow public uploads directly to our page, but only after having 50 items there. As it is now, one item is one competition which means years to reach that from the 30 we have now, but one could always get creative and make collections like winning songs etc etc to reach that number faster.. Drawback is no player on the OSC site, only a link to the archive.org's site where there's a player.

I think a winning songs section would be pretty cool. I've gone back to a few of the archives from early one-synth-contests and have heard great stuff there, but navigating through them is not easy. Having all the past winners on one page would be nice.

As far as switching to archive.org as a soundcloud alternative, there are a lot of plusses to soundcloud in spite of the poor sound quality. It's very fun to look at the listens by country and see all the people around the world listening to your tune. Also nice to be able to comment on certain parts of songs with it. I'm not sure but a switch from soundcloud could affect the number of participants, which it seems everyone wants to see grow.

[IrionDaRonin]

All this stuff you are talking about made remember of another day, i was thinking about to make a post by myself with the three first winners in each month in OSC.
Like the Hall of Fame thread in Music Cafe, but about OSC.

I really would like to do it.

But should i ask permission to every winner to upload their songs into dropbox (for example) and set as link to listen in real time?

V'ger, what do you think about this and about to give me some direct links from wherever you upload the mp3s?

Have a good day

[V'ger]

I think a winning songs section would be pretty cool. I've gone back to a few of the archives from early one-synth-contests and have heard great stuff there, but navigating through them is not easy.

Hm, what exactly is not easy about the navigation?

As far as switching to archive.org as a soundcloud alternative, there are a lot of plusses to soundcloud in spite of the poor sound quality.

There really is. Comments, stats, pics and complete control of your own track to reupload etc are all good things. Yea let's just allow for wav uploads to SC and see after that.

V'ger, what do you think about this and about to give me some direct links from wherever you upload the mp3s?

Not sure i understand what u mean? A post in this thread? And what kind of direct links would you need then?

[evo2slo]

I think a winning songs section would be pretty cool. I've gone back to a few of the archives from early one-synth-contests and have heard great stuff there, but navigating through them is not easy.

Hm, what exactly is not easy about the navigation?

From the OSC website - which is great btw I click on the link for a past contest. Then from there I click on the 'individually' link which brings up the archive.org page with all the tracks. If I want to hear the winners from that month I then need to click the results link and then go back to the archive page to listen. It would be easier to listen to past winning entries if there was a single place that consolidated all of them - such as IrionDaRonin is suggesting.

[V'ger]

Hm, very strange you don't see the (no-nag) player that has all entries listed according to points. It's flash based of course, but judging from your previous comments you can see the SoundCloud player which is also flash, so..

What's your OS? And what's your flash player version? (right click somewhere in the soundcloud player's background and it will show up in a menu)

[evo2slo]

Hm, very strange you don't see the (no-nag) player that has all entries listed according to points. It's flash based of course, but judging from your previous comments you can see the SoundCloud player which is also flash, so..

What's your OS? And what's your flash player version? (right click somewhere in the soundcloud player's background and it will show up in a menu)

On a mac using Safari can't see any player.
Just tried it using Firefox and oh, there it is! Very nice.