How can a 192kbps mp3 be broadcast quality?

[WeWillWriteUaSong]

I agree with Casey 100%. Follow the guidelines. They are there for a reason. Usually server limitations. No need to throw a wrench in the system. This is similar to when ppl ask about the "vintage label" around these parts. They ask, "how will they know if I recorded it back then?" The answer is, be honest to ppl just trying to help u succeed. I encode at 192k for MANY studio clients, and while it's not a WAV file, it will do just fine for circulating and listening purposes. Keep the hi-res on file for when they ask for it.

[Len911]

I agree with Casey 100% be Pro!

My feeling is, if at 192 it doesn't sound Broadcast quality, something is wrong with the mix
At the Rally we watched an editor edit a TV show musically, the majority of the files she used were MP3's
We did ask about it and I believe the reply was that that was normal for her and the library she was using. (Did anyone else catch that moment?)

Cass, I think that brings up a good point, there seems to be some confusion about broadcast quality versus hi fidelity. Sometimes it's discussed as being one in the same, apparently it isn't.

[Casey H]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unprofessional, it's more of a misdemeanor than a felony, just as guidelines aren't the same as a specification. Most submissions will probably be rejected for not meeting the listing requirements, but there is that small chance of being accepted other than broadcast quality. Sonnox makes a couple products where you can compare the difference between different mp3 bit sizes on a song, and I think it depends, cymbals seem to really make a difference imo.

I use speed limits as a guideline,lol, there's an area outside of town, nothing around, that's 25, I usually do 35, however, I do 55 or 60 on the interstate where the limit is 70.

I hear all the time how people ignore that and upload 192K or 320K.

Is gossip unprofessional?

Use your own judgment.

Sorry Len. We disagree strongly. First, the word "guidelines" from a publisher **IS** a specification. Just semantics. Second, it **IS** unprofessional to **INTENTIONALLY** disregard guidelines.

[Len911]

Sorry Len. We disagree strongly. First, the word "guidelines" from a publisher **IS** a specification. Just semantics. Second, it **IS** unprofessional to **INTENTIONALLY** disregard guidelines.

[WeWillWriteUaSong]

Cass, I think that brings up a good point, there seems to be some confusion about broadcast quality versus hi fidelity. Sometimes it's discussed as being one in the same, apparently it isn't.

Hey Len I'm not sure there is confusion between hi-fi (hi-res) and broadcast quality. I feel like the confusion seems to be between broadcast quality and compression settings. You can have a broadcast quality song with a lot of different compression settings. If the song being submitted is "broadcast quality", then whatever compression settings they are requesting doesn't matter, or rather you will absolutely not be faulted for uploading a 192k mp3 if that's what is being asked of you. If the song is returned for not being broadcast quality, then it wasn't broadcast quality to begin with. On the other hand, if someone asks you to send them files at a certain bitrate and you choose to take it upon yourself to disregard those instructions - for a small amount of bandwidth - then it's just plain rude. And like casey said, a very respected LA lib asks for submissions in 128k. And i think it'll cause more harm than good to blatantly disregard instructions when there is always a reason for it (size) . If the song can't be compressed to 128k and still sound decent then it wasn't ready for the big show. Even at 24/48 hi-res

[Len911]

I hear you Marcus. First let me say that I don't advocate sending someone anything other than what they ask for. Someone was concerned about broadcast quality, it's possible to upload 320k mp3's, people do it, and it was discussed once on a taxi tv episode
and the boss seemed to be fine with it at the time.

Broadcast quality as discussed encompasses more than just resolution of a file. I think everyone could agree that you would never issue a music cd with low quality mp3's. It could be argued that it really doesn't matter for tv because music isn't the focus, and who's gonna hear it anyway,lol! The conundrum is that the tv music is screened in isolation and at a higher volume, and thus held to a higher standard.

I brought up the Sonnox plugins because they seem like they might be a very useful tool to counter balance the conundrum. It can alert you to a problem, and then you can determine how to overcome it, turn the cymbals down, some eq cuts,levels,whatever. Of course the other conundrum is listening to a wave file in the video at whatever streaming bit rate youtube offers,lol!
https://youtu.be/NspzI2OHmqo
~$50 at Sonnox (not on sale)
https://www.sonnox.com/store
the expensive one, Pro Codec is $200 or half off during November

[Len911]

Maybe I should note that the mp3 format is a proprietary data compression algorithm. It's not like an audio compression which is usually more linear and easier to gauge the difference between compression levels. The goal is the reduction of space and to reduce the space wherever it is least likely to be noticed. It could be that they preserve the space for guitar down to 128K, but they dump the cymbals at 192k, because, hey, who uses many cymbals anyway,lol! Maybe not quite that simple, but anyway, it's hard to try and guess exactly what the formula is, or how it's going to sound at each resolution unless you can audition at a number of different resolutions. So it probably wouldn't be fair to say it doesn't matter, maybe not for a guitar solo, but for a cymbal solo it probably does, that's not the fault of the mixer, it's how the program works.

[WeWillWriteUaSong]

Maybe I should note that the mp3 format is a proprietary data compression algorithm. It's not like an audio compression which is usually more linear and easier to gauge the difference between compression levels. The goal is the reduction of space and to reduce the space wherever it is least likely to be noticed. It could be that they preserve the space for guitar down to 128K, but they dump the cymbals at 192k, because, hey, who uses many cymbals anyway,lol! Maybe not quite that simple, but anyway, it's hard to try and guess exactly what the formula is, or how it's going to sound at each resolution unless you can audition at a number of different resolutions. So it probably wouldn't be fair to say it doesn't matter, maybe not for a guitar solo, but for a cymbal solo it probably does, that's not the fault of the mixer, it's how the program works.

It doesn't matter. But not because of resolution. Its because what we're talking about is not the final product. I'm certainly not arguing that mp3 is an appropriate method. Its not. Mp3s suck. But that's not the discussion. The mp3 that taxi is requesting, is NOT the final product that the publisher signs or places. They listen to it as a demo to see if they even like the track. Then will request the hi-res wav or aif. A pub will know at 192, 128, or even a 64k wma file whether or not they want the track. An mp3 at 320 can be over 10mb. A 192k mp3 is closer to 5mb. Meaning TAXI or a publisher can fit twice as many (which is probably why they are asking that). If Michael said 320 is fine then that's cool. It's his biz. But the initial question was is a 192k mp3 broadcast quality. And my long winded point is that the mp3 is not what's being broadcast...so it doesn't matter. And therefore no need to upload at 320

[Len911]

But the initial question was is a 192k mp3 broadcast quality. And my long winded point is that the mp3 is not what's being broadcast...so it doesn't matter. And therefore no need to upload at 320

I really don't disagree with you Marcus. I'm not personally a perfectionist. Or am I?
Some things I'm sure they ask for better, somethings should be ready to go. Sometimes it matters and sometimes it don't. Why does it matter for a demo that the singer be one gender or the other, it's not the final cut. Why does it even matter if the person can sing? Why not just hum a few bars?
Anyway, for reasons I gave before, most submissions go through a screener and are not direct to the publisher, and it's best to put your best forward. I don't even know why we're having this discussion anyway when you think about it. Storage space is cheaper, internet speeds are faster, memory is cheaper, computers are faster.

[DesireInspires]

Just export the track as a wav/aiff and then convert to the 192 bit mp3.