Uploading to the Taxi Music Page (Bit Rate Question)

[jlizerbram]

Hi all,

The TAXI Music page says to upload: (mp3 files only -- up to 192kbps). However, a recent critique said "The sound quality is good but the encoding could be at a higher bit rate." Fortunately, the cue was forwarded (yeah!), but now I'm thinking to break the rules and upload something with a higher bit rate. Is it OK to TAXI for us to upload files greater than 192K, perhaps up to 320K? I totally understand that 192K will allow for more songs hosted on the server across the members, and that is probably why the rule is there. But I'm afraid that 192K might be on the cusp of what sounds "broadcast quality".

-Jeff

[Len911]

I'd go with 320k! i seem to recall a taxi tv episode where Michael addressed that issue, but I don't want to speak for him, and it's never been changed, so I'm not sure it's official.

[mojobone]

There is a file size limit, but as long as you don't exceed that, you can use a higher bitrate. This may not work for really long pieces, but for cues should be fine.

[fuzzbox]

I uploaded all mine at 320k.
As Mojobone and Len911 says, it the file size is the restriction.
If you get a message to say the file is too big, then you can reduce the encoding to the next size. If still too large then reduce again. and so on. That is what I have done over the years on various platforms, even if they stipulate a certain encoding size you can often go larger as long as your file size is equal to or under the size limit. That way you can at least get the best quality possible for the size limit.

(As the years roll on company's will upgrade their servers and storage increases but the web page text may not reflect that they're able to accept larger file sizes ).

Cheers

[hummingbird]

It has always concerned me a bit that the forwarding party only gets to hear a 128k mp3...

Good to know you can go 320 if file size permits!

[Casey H]

If the track was encoded at 192K and the screeners suggested encoding at a higher bit rate would help, I'm scratching my head. Chances are whatever the problem is exists in the original mix, not the encoding bit rate. I've been doing this a very long time and 192K is a perfectly acceptable bit rate-- a good compromise between quality and file size.

MANY of us have been and are still sending review versions to libraries for years at 192K with no problem. One excellent Taxi-friendly library in LA that a lot of you know still asks for 128K review submissions! (Though I know it makes a lot of folks cringe)

Of the dozens and dozens of libraries I work with, only ONE asks for 320K for initial review. Also, many library execs will go to your Soundcloud page to review tracks and I believe those are encoded to flash at 128K. Just signed a bunch that way.

You can't hear specs. As techies, we sometimes get way too caught up in that and lose our ears.

My 2.5 cents
Casey

[Len911]

Mp3 algorithms are proprietary, so exactly how they do what they do is secretive. The Sonnox codec video shows you a bit of the difference between a 320 kbps and a 96 kbps, you can see that there are more potential problems in the different frequency bands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NspzI2OHmqo

More complex mixes with more frequencies in the zones that are affected most by the mp3 encoders and the more they take out are naturally going to have more artifacts than say a guitar and vocal. The vocal range is very critical, and it's unlikely too much is messed with there. I believe some instruments like cello and distorted guitars seem more problematic than other instruments.

Soundcloud may stream at 128kbps, but they allow a wav upload. Does it make sense to have one encoding from wav to mp3 streaming over an uploaded mp3 encoded from a proprietary mp3 encoder to perhaps transcoded to a different mp3 encoder, maybe, maybe not. There's probably a lot less chance of artifacts uploading a wav instead of an already encoded mp3. Soundcloud also uses time limits rather than data limits, so there's no advantage in uploading an mp3 over a wav or aiff.

If you don't wish to think to much about it, just upload the biggest and the best you can.

[mojobone]

It's a fair point Casey raised; if you're uploading a 192k file, there shouldn't be any reason for it to get dinged over sound quality; more likely it's a frequency imbalance, misuse/overuse of saturation and/or compression or excessive sibilance freaking out the encoder. Increasing the file size won't help a bad mix. Listening to forwards is a great way to hear how your mixes measure up.

BTW, not all codecs are proprietary; many are open source, not that that makes any difference, since most of us aren't doing our own coding/compiling.

[Len911]

BTW, not all codecs are proprietary; many are open source, not that that makes any difference, since most of us aren't doing our own coding/compiling.

Cool, I didn't know that!