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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[Casey H]

Quote: 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. mattoPros and cons for mp3 bitrates... One of the big pros is that a 128K file takes up about 62.5% of the physical space and download time as 192K, while providing reasonable audio quality. A typical song takes up 3-4MB as 128K and 5-6MB as 192K. Music supervisors, libraries, and publishers who accept submissions by email get a lot of attachments sent to them. it is very easy for their email inboxes to get full. Also, the time to download and save files really adds up when you are dealing with as many submissions as they do. They will listen to an mp3 and then if interested ask for the CD or (staying electronic!) ask for a transmittal of a .wav or .aiff file by FTP or a website like yousendit.com ...Of course, it would be better if screeners listened to 192K. Not denying that. But it's not a big deal. And the people they forward to are typically like what I described above. If they like your track, the will ask for higher resolution. Casey