Flaw in critique process: Broadcast/Master Quality vs mp3

[mojobone]

The last fade sounds a little goofy, but if "non-BQ" was the stated reason for not forwarding, you should contact Taxi, imo. Certainly, the problem ain't related to the conversion process.

[shanegrla]

Yeah, I heard a bit of distortion in there too. Sounded like the drums were overloading it just a touch. It's too bad. Everybody's right, it is a good track. Sounds great for a commercial, etc. Fortunately, it sounds like something very fixable - just re-bouncing something, or whatever you've got going on with routing, etc.

As for having two different versions of it in the same file, I know I haven't heard of that being asked for before, but I've only been here just over a year now. Maybe some of the more veteran members can weigh in on that one. Doesn't seem like standard procedure to me. Did the listing specifically ask for that?

I believe when they're saying they want :30 and :60 versions of a song, I think that just means that they want you to send in one or the other, but make sure it is easily editable to fit the other time length when needed.

Am I off base here?

Shane

[rld]

Interestingly, I've had a few placements where they never asked for any file, they just used the format that TAXI sent with all the forwards.
Maybe TAXI converts the mp3's to wav's or some other format when they send the collection?
I don't know, but apparently mp3 quality is good enough for some placements.

[mojobone]

Yeah, there is a little distortion; easily fixable, jes' back off the exciter a little or a lot, cuz it's all in the 'presence' range. (and a little goes a very long way, with exciters) To my thinkin', it was a bit of neither fish nor fowl, what with the cool-on-its-own synth lick being the only unnatural instrument on the palette. I might have run it through an amp sim to grunge it up a bit so as to better match the rockin' guitars in the track, or maybe even played the lick with a guitar hammer-on, though I suppose that might make it a different genre, heh. It certainly wasn't bad, perhaps everything else submitted was just that much better?

[admin]

I coined the term Broadcast Quality (in the context of film/TV music) years ago because people in the muisc library industry used Master Quality and I felt it was misleading. I hear tons of music on TV that is most definitely not Master Quality. Master Quality means it's good enough to put on a record, while Broadcast Quality has a little lower bar. HOWEVER... something could be both!

Confused yet?

Broadcast Quality means it's good enough to go on TV or in a movie, but might not be of the standard that a world class engineer would put on a major label record. NOW are you confused?

MP3, non-MP3 really has little to do with it, and frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find anybody on the picture side of the industry who could tell the difference. An unbalanced mix could negate something's Broadcast Quality status. An underperformed, unconvincing or pitchy vocal could also kill it. A weak vocal on a track engineered by Bob Clearmountain could also disqualify it as BQ! It's much more about the overall quality than it is about the technical SOUND quality, although that is part of the whole. Wanna be even more confused? Read on...

Conversely, a mono acoustic guitar/vocal track recorded with Garageband using an SM57 with a great vocal performance and a decent balance/mix could absolutely be BQ. NOW are you confused????

Bottom line: Does it sound good enough to work with picture? That's how I simply define BQ. Here's a more extensive explanation:

http://www.taxi.com/transmitter/0905/br ... dings.html

Going to bed,
Michael

P.S. I really was the first person to use Broadcast Quality in this context... Forward and Return are mine too! Burrito (for those who've been around long enough to remember), Musician Middle Class... the list goes on, yet I'm no Mark Zuckerberg

[Casey H]

Interestingly, I've had a few placements where they never asked for any file, they just used the format that TAXI sent with all the forwards.
Maybe TAXI converts the mp3's to wav's or some other format when they send the collection?
I don't know, but apparently mp3 quality is good enough for some placements.

I've seen this too where a library or end user used the mp3, never even asking for the original wav or aif file. It just goes to show you how little difference there can be to many users in many applications. And remember if someone converts an mp3 back to wav, they can't put back what was already lost in compression. So if Taxi sends a CD burned from mp3 and the end user converts to wav, what they have is mp3 quality... And they sometimes don't mind at all!

I'm not saying that mp3 is as good as original wav. But it's important not to be overly concerned that the difference in your track being BQ or not is in that. It virtually never is.

This goes hand in hand with discussions about what kind of headphones screeners use. Sometimes we find ourselves looking in all the wrong places for why our tracks aren't BQ enough for film/TV use.

Casey

[jimmymio]

Maybe TAXI converts the mp3's to wav's or some other format when they send the collection?

There'd be no point to that. Once the file is compressed to mp3....you can't get the fidelity back.
JP

[jimmymio]

mp3s are a great vehicle for easily exchanging songs. They are perfectly capable of portraying the quality of the songwriting as well as the quality of the production. However, it's really disappointing to think the mp3 itself would be used in any kind of film or tv. They just don't sound as good as high res formats.
JP

[rld]

Yeah, totally agree Casey.
I think a lot of members are confused by the "Not Master/Broadcast Quality" especially when the "Recording" box is checked,
because it doesn't seem consistent.
IMO, there should be no grey area as far as a BQ recording, it either is or isn't.
If the playing is stellar but the recording is filled with hiss or compressor pumping, etc. then it's not BQ.
If the playing/singing is out of tune or time, but its recorded perfectly, I think that passes BQ,
but it would fail the forward because of the instrument/vocal performance, of which there is a box to be checked.
"BQ Recording" should be about the technical aspect of the recording.
Now I'm just saying this because folks are always asking about "recording" being checked when the recording seems fine, but the performance may be lacking.
If its the performance, then check the appropriate box.
If it's "recording" then maybe a short description would clear thing up.
Sometimes nothing is checked and we're left to wonder.