TAXI hosting: why 128kps?

[horacejesse]

Wow, I am on the forum everyday and I did not even know about this. So what will Taxi charge for this new service? The same as Broadjam? I am assuming it will not be part of the basic Taxi membership package.

[Casey H]

Quote:Wow, I am on the forum everyday and I did not even know about this. So what will Taxi charge for this new service?$0

[flyingtadpole]

Quote:<snip>I know you accept 128k MP3 from your artists for your clients, but as you say that's only for preliminary screening...which Taxi is doing for theirs. So, they'll hopefully be sending higher-bitrate files to the listing parties.But how can Taxi send higher bitrate files to the listing parties if they don't have them because all the electronic submits are at 128kbps?

[andreh]

Quote:Quote:<snip>I know you accept 128k MP3 from your artists for your clients, but as you say that's only for preliminary screening...which Taxi is doing for theirs. So, they'll hopefully be sending higher-bitrate files to the listing parties.But how can Taxi send higher bitrate files to the listing parties if they don't have them because all the electronic submits are at 128kbps?Exactly...that's why we all need to push for Taxi to accept (and hopefully stream) higher "bitrated" files.Andre

[flyingtadpole]

Quote:...if you submitted music to Taxi at 192k and now it's streaming at 128k, that means it went through a second conversion process and will sound far worse than if you'd just converted to 128k from the source .wav or .aif in the first place. I'd be nervous too! Sigh. I have 24hours left to re-upload the three files before that listing ends, so I'll do my own conversion from wav to 128K. The submission form has already gone in mit de money. This is synth/orchestral music and there's a helluva difference! Regardless of my native talent or lack thereof. It's not like those guys with great melodies and great lyrics that shine through 26kps!!!I can't do it from Broadjam, as I'm a super new (2-3 days ago) member. If I'd joined Taxi about 2 weeks ago I could run from Broadjam until my TAXI or Broadjam membership came up for renewal, but total newbies, no.

[flyingtadpole]

Quote:Quote:But how can Taxi send higher bitrate files to the listing parties if they don't have them because all the electronic submits are at 128kbps?Exactly...that's why we all need to push for Taxi to accept (and hopefully stream) higher "bitrated" files.I've sent a hopeful email to Online Services. I suspect I might be the object of "never be the first on your block to have the new whatever"!Thing is, I was prepared to run and pay for Broadjam account for the ease of electronic submission at good quality. The $50 would very quickly pay itself back in postage from here, at $15 a submission to get it there on time from here... I'm prepared to pay Taxi too if need be.

[matto]

The last thing you'd wanna do is get paranoid about your music not getting forwarded or selected because of the 128k thing.Virtually no company I work with wants more than 128k, unless it's a music supervisor looking to use the mp3 as a final in a movie or major tv show.Everything I send out for approval is at 128, and I never run into problems. I think the pros in film and tv (music supervisors and editors, library owners and reps etc) have long learned to recognize mp3 artifacts, and to distinguish them from other sound quality issues. I will lobby Taxi to get 192k, cause it does sound a lot better, but IMHO this issue is being blown way out of proportion.matto

[andreh]

Quote:The last thing you'd wanna do is get paranoid about your music not getting forwarded or selected because of the 128k thing.Virtually no company I work with wants more than 128k, unless it's a music supervisor looking to use the mp3 as a final in a movie or major tv show.Everything I send out for approval is at 128, and I never run into problems. I think the pros in film and tv (music supervisors and editors, library owners and reps etc) have long learned to recognize mp3 artifacts, and to distinguish them from other sound quality issues. I will lobby Taxi to get 192k, cause it does sound a lot better, but IMHO this issue is being blown way out of proportion.mattoHi Matto-I'm sure you're right in everything you say here, and I don't think anyone should flip out over a current submission that's at 128k (even though there IS a sonic difference, as you state).To me it's more of a principle issue for Taxi than anything else. Just because the industry and the music-consuming public are prepared to accept lower standards in audio quality doesn't mean we should set our standards equally low.With all the tips that ML and the Taxi gang provide to help us get our music to "broadcast quality," it's clear they see value in achieving great sound...so it should follow that those values are reflected in their approach to conducting business - especially in such a direct way as how much bit-crushing is done to our masterpieces before they're heard! By the way, I am grateful for Taxi's decision to provide an online submission system of their own...but if it's going to be inferior in quality to the current Broadjam option, then both methods should remain available so we have a choice about which method to use.Andre

[jeffe]

On the upload screen, it says you can upload MP3's up to 192k.I can understand streaming at a lower bit rate. It uses up less of the bandwidth, but still provides reasonable qaulity sound.I would assume that the original MP3 is on their servers, and is available for screening and forwards. It's a point they could clarify if members have real concerns about it. Why not try mailing the webmaster about it.96k is considered FM radio quality (apparently. well, according to the codec developers).Would the best question to ask be the following."Do you screen and forward the original audio files that we upload"?

[sgs4u]

Quote:I will lobby Taxi to get 192k, cause it does sound a lot better, but IMHO this issue is being blown way out of proportion. matto There are very valid reasons for Taxi members to care about the fidelity their music is judged with. There are some very talented and productive Taxi members wondering why Taxi would choose 128 when there are so many obvious reason why 192 is so much better. If the reason we are given is that it's more cost effective, then how could anyone expect the membership to rally around that decision? Nobody's blowing anything out of proportion or getting paranoid. Those are your opinions. Unfortunately, your humble opinion comes across as using a shotgun to scratch an itch, in this case. And of course that is my humble opinion. Quote:By the way, I am grateful for Taxi's decision to provide an online submission system of their own...but if it's going to be inferior in quality to the current Broadjam option, then both methods should remain available so we have a choice about which method to use. I agree with Andre, completely. I am a grateful to have an option NOT to use Broadjam's intermittent quality, and I'm excited about Taxi becoming a BETTER service provider. Yay TAXI! We don't neccessarily have to agree, and can still respect each other's views, and the right to voice them. steve