TAXI hosting: why 128kps?

[flyingtadpole]

Dear Aunt TaxiHaving had to tweak an upload a bit, I suddenly realised everything is streaming at 128 kps, not at 192kps. As a newbie, I find this worrying, and potentially to the disadvantage of anyone submitting electronically through the Taxi hosting. Everything I put up, or am likely to put up, is stuff for those "Broadcast quality needed" listings, film, TV and so on. By definition, 128kps is not broadcast quality. The difference between 128 and 192 is quite audible especially if you're dealing with things like synth strings.If I submit electronically via the Taxi hosting, are the screeners going to be listening to 128 from my Taxi hosting, and 192 (CD quality) from those with a physical CD submitted?If a song is forwarded, is it forwarded in 128 or in 192?It's not that I have a choice here, I set up a Broadjam account for electronic submission just before I paid my dues, and just before Taxi stopped accepting submissions via Broadjam (which of course runs at up to 192kps). (Immaculately bad timing has always been a major feature of my life, along with a sequence of lost causes....)Mailing is prohibitively expensive for me and ultra slow (I'm in Australia). (Sgd) Anxious beginner

[mazz]

Quote:I think a listener will be able to determine if the song is good enough based on a 128 kbps MP3. Many people happily listen to 128 kbps MP3s and like what they are hearing. I used to take extra steps before rendering to an MP3, but a good mix and a good MP3 encoder seems to be all that I need. I found that converting to an MP3 would exaggerate bad aspects of my mixes in the higher frequencies, so I have tried to solve that with better mixes. It's not perfect, but I think it's good enough to assess most songs. While I agree that an experienced listener would be able to hear through the "pretty much as good as cassette (remember those) quality" of the 128K sound, is there really that much bandwidth difference (and storage space difference) between 128K and 192K? Enough difference to sacrifce a fairly large hit in sound quality?Not dissing TAXI's new service at all, just wondering what's behind the technical decisions.Mazz

[mazz]

I've found out that when I go to renew my Broadjam service in September, I won't be able to submit to TAXI from Broadjam anymore. I'm mixed about that given the current state of the TAXI mp3 bit rate but I'll probably continue with Broadjam for hosting and just add my name to the TAXI site for submissions. Broadjam is starting their own "delivery" service so maybe the competition issue reared it's ugly head.In any case, hopefully the TAXI music site will be in full swing by September and maybe then we can lobby for higher bit rates. I'm happy that TAXI is expanding. They really do support their members.Mazz

[andreh]

I haven't looked into Taxi's electronic submission service yet, but if it's true that they're going with a 128k bitrate I'll be VERY disappointed. Even if Taxi screeners are willing to overlook the serious compromise in audio quality that this causes (especially for orchestral/instrumental music that's seeing a lot of action around here these days), we'd still be going up against others submitting to the listing parties at much better-sounding bitrates.The streaming problems Broadjam has often had don't seem related to using a 192k bitrate (which still isn't CD quality, but it's a big step up from 128k); it's common to stream smoothly at this rate with a broadband connection. More likely, Taxi is concerned about the cost of supporting the many high-speed servers that will be required, and these costs are likely greater when more data is being streamed. I can understand this concern from a financial standpoint, but for Taxi to put the quality of its members' music submissions behind its bank account seems like biting the hand that feeds you.And since when did Taxi stop accepting e-subs through Broadjam? I just submitted a couple days ago, and it looks like I still can through my Broadjam account.A couple additional thoughts:- A great mix will still sound very good at 128k, but with the competition that exists in this industry we need every advantage we can get- If 192k realtime-streaming is too much for Taxi to swallow, how about an option to at least deliver the files at 192k (or higher) to the client, even if any live streaming is at 128k? then again, we do a fair amount of sharing our music with one another around here, and it'd still be a bummer to have to hear it all at 128k. Andre

[flyingtadpole]

Andre, I took the Broadjam message to mean it wasn't possible, hence my using the Taxi hosting. So I've submitted my first three through Taxi. At 128K it now turns out. That's why I'm anxious to say the least.

[mazz]

Andre, when your Broadjam membership comes up for renew and you choose to do so, you'll no longer have the TAXI option. I've been corresponding with one of their folks and that's what I found out.If TAXI would allow higher bit rate submissions and then downsample for streaming, that would save bandwidth (they may already be doing that, see below).I streamed someone's music off the TAXI site last night and iTunes played it. When I looked at the info, the bit rate was 56K and the sample rate was 22K. Way worse than cassette! Hopefully the clients wont hear that!!I'm optomistic that TAXI will get it right, with a little help from their loudmouth friends

[andreh]

Quote:Andre, I took the Broadjam message to mean it wasn't possible, hence my using the Taxi hosting. So I've submitted my first three through Taxi. At 128K it now turns out. That's why I'm anxious to say the least.Hi Tadpole,I'm not sure what Broadjam message you're referring to. However, 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! On the other hand, we should all try not to get too caught up in the result of one submission, even if it seems like it could lead to that big break. If your tunes are good and you're persistent, you'll get your big break (or series of progressively less-small breaks) at some point anyway.Andre

[andreh]

Quote:Andre, when your Broadjam membership comes up for renew and you choose to do so, you'll no longer have the TAXI option. I've been corresponding with one of their folks and that's what I found out.If TAXI would allow higher bit rate submissions and then downsample for streaming, that would save bandwidth (they may already be doing that, see below).I streamed someone's music off the TAXI site last night and iTunes played it. When I looked at the info, the bit rate was 56K and the sample rate was 22K. Way worse than cassette! Hopefully the clients wont hear that!!Thanks for the info Mazz...good to know.Quote:I'm optomistic that TAXI will get it right, with a little help from their loudmouth friends So am I! Taxi has made good decisions for its members up to this point; I'm sure they won't let us down. Andre

[Casey H]

Interestingly, it was only a few years ago that 128K was the de-facto standard in mp3s and the minimum level of acceptable audio. Email that supported attachments of 5MB or more is a relatively new development in the history of the e-music world. Not that far back, most music hosting sites only accepted 128K.I find MANY film/TV music supervisors, publishers, and other music industry folks readily using 128K mp3 for first listen. 90% of the game is weeding out what doesn't work for them and 128K is fine for that. In film/TV and music libraries, very often they will listen to mp3 (or even a link to streaming) and then if they like what they hear ask for a CD. The only time it may be an issue is for really high end film/TV, especially orchestral, where a wide dynamic range is needed. If someone is submitting for something like that and is really concerned, there are still old fashioned burritos.Look at the really bright side. You just saved $50 a year for electronic submissions! Casey

[andreh]

Quote:Interestingly, it was only a few years ago that 128K was the de-facto standard in mp3s and the minimum level of acceptable audio. Email that supported attachments of 5MB or more is a relatively new development in the history of the e-music world. Not that far back, most music hosting sites only accepted 128K.I find MANY film/TV music supervisors, publishers, and other music industry folks readily using 128K mp3 for first listen. 90% of the game is weeding out what doesn't work for them and 128K is fine for that. In film/TV and music libraries, very often they will listen to mp3 (or even a link to streaming) and then if they like what they hear ask for a CD. The only time it may be an issue is for really high end film/TV, especially orchestral, where a wide dynamic range is needed. If someone is submitting for something like that and is really concerned, there are still old fashioned burritos.Look at the really bright side. You just saved $50 a year for electronic submissions! CaseyHey Casey-No harm in your positive take on the issue, but it seems like you're folding way too soon! 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.Having to resort to snail-mail burritos when current technology can easily support electronic submission of reasonably high-bitrate files seems like a big, unnecesary step backward in Taxi's approach. This is all speculation from me, though, since I don't know anything about the details beyond what's been posted on this thread.Andre