Flaw in critique process: Broadcast/Master Quality vs mp3

[mandycan]

I have been searching this forum for what I think is a major issue that seems to have been overlooked here.

Every tv/film listing want's "broadcast/master" quality, true.

Why is it then that mp3 is the standard for uploading our music? When mp3 is clearly a garbage/demo format?

This should be taken in consideration because if I were a music supervisor listening to mp3s I would expect the artist has higher quality files that would ultimately be used in the final production. And if the music was on target, isn't the mp3 file quality irrelevant?

As an artist getting a forward from an mp3 file (assuming they wanted my track) would expect a music supervisor to request at least a cd quality file for the final production. Who in there right mind would use an mp3 file in a final production mix? It's absurd! Nothing I've ever heard on tv/film sounds like an mp3 file.

So, not getting a forward based on this criteria alone I believe is a major flaw in the process. When everything else could be right on target for the listing but it's returned because it's not "broadcast/master" quality, duh! it's an mp3 file!

I realize I can send a CD instead of uploading mp3 files, but that defeats the purpose for uploading in the first place.

Who out there has actually had their mp3 file used in a final production? Raise your hands!

[fret17]

Hi mandycan....I don't really have an answer to your question....I'm replying to get this thread out of "unanswered posts" because i'd like to hear more input on this topic as well....I'm not good at producing BQ with my submissions....I agree that for some reason, that I'm ignorant to, my tape and digital creations turn to crap when I try to get them into mp3 format....most of my finished mp3s sound nice on my ipod...different though through other audio equipment....not too bad in the car.....but I'm hoping to hear more on this from some members that have more experience...it's a good question that needs addressing imho....thanks for posting it.......

[bassman]

I think when broadcast quality is mentioned, what's really being referred to is the quality of the music.
ie. clean recordings, a decent mix and something which sounds like it could be on TV.

In terms of getting a track rejected because it's not the right mp3 format, I find that highly unlikely
even for a cynical so and so like myself.
What often happens, at least in my experience, is that the publisher will ask you for an aiff/wav file when
they've accepted the track.
At the same time I don't think it's uncommon that music supervisors choose mp3s, based on a recent experience I had.
So why do they choose mp3s over aiff. Answer: I don't know.

[davewalton]

I have been searching this forum for what I think is a major issue that seems to have been overlooked here.

Why is it then that mp3 is the standard for uploading our music? When mp3 is clearly a garbage/demo format?

I would dispute that MP3 is a garbage format. I suppose it *could* be a garbage format if the quality is low enough but a 192k MP3 is pretty much CD quality. The casual or engaged listener would not think anything negative from the sound quality of a 192k MP3. The reason for the standard of MP3 is simply file size. Two or three megabytes for an MP3 vs thirty-plus megabytes for the same song in uncompressed WAV or AIFF format. A screener, music supervisor, publisher or library owner just doesn't need a thirty megabyte WAV file to determine if said song will work for his or her needs.

As an artist getting a forward from an mp3 file (assuming they wanted my track) would expect a music supervisor to request at least a cd quality file for the final production.

For the final production they do request CD's, WAV or AIFF format files. That's part of the process too. Taxi screens using our MP3 format files. Those that are forwarded are forwarded in that same format. Remember... the listing companies aren't guaranteeing a deal just because we got forwarded. They're evaluating our music along with other music that they receive from other sources and when the time comes to send a contract or make a deal of some sort... then, that's the time where we'll get the request for the file format that they prefer. That file format can be CD, 16 bit 48klhz WAV or AIFF, 16 bit 44.1 kHz WAV or AIFF or 24 bit variations of 48kHz or 44.1 kHz WAV or AIFF files. Each company seems to have their own preferences.

So, not getting a forward based on this criteria alone I believe is a major flaw in the process. When everything else could be right on target for the listing but it's returned because it's not "broadcast/master" quality, duh! it's an mp3 file!

That never happens (returned for non-broadcast-quality because it was an MP3). What about those that DID get forwarded? They submitted MP3's just like everyone else! MP3's can be and are "broadcast quality". It's a level playing field for everyone. MP3 format is no excuse for bad quality. FWIW... here's a 16 bit 44.1 kHz (CD quality) uncompressed WAV file and a 192k MP3 of a track that I did recently for a music library. The MP3 quality is so close to the WAV file that it's not even noticeable. Or if a difference can be discerned, it's certainly not enough to throw it out because it's not broadcast quality...

16 bit 44.1 (CD quality) WAV
http://www.DaveWaltonMusic.com/PrivateA ... kyPete.wav

192k MP3
http://www.DaveWaltonMusic.com/MyMusic/SneakyPete.mp3

Who in there right mind would use an mp3 file in a final production mix? It's absurd! Nothing I've ever heard on tv/film sounds like an mp3 file. Who out there has actually had their mp3 file used in a final production? Raise your hands!

Me and quite a few others that I know on this forum have had placements using MP3 files... writing music for a major network production company that sometimes has had a very short deadline for new music. We've written the music, sent the demos in as MP3's and they've used those MP3's way before the process of stemming and sending or uploading the full quality versions.

So anyway, MP3 format is not a barrier to getting forwards, deals and placements. Regarding the basic forwarding process in the parlance of a sports team that claims that they lost because it was windy... if it was windy remember it was windy for both teams.

[bassman]

192k MP3 is pretty much CD quality

Great post Dave but I have to dissagree with you on
the above statement.

[davewalton]

192k MP3 is pretty much CD quality

Great post Dave but I have to dissagree with you on
the above statement.

I should qualify that with an asterisk *...

* "based on what little difference I hear between the two examples I posted".

[mazz]

I'm not enthralled with the quality of mp3s, I can hear the difference in depth and clarity between a 192kbps mp3 and a CD quality WAV file in my studio, but for the purposes of submitting for listings (and, for that matter, having demos on a website), the 192kbps and above mp3s actually sound very good.

And to amplify Dave's point: I had an mp3 demo placed in a major MLK special 3 years ago due to a very tight deadline (I think it's the same show Dave was talking about). We submitted our demos and never heard back and the air date was fast approaching. They never asked for WAV files until well after the show aired and almost all the music in that show was the mp3 demos that the composers had sent in. And guess what, it sounded fine. Since during the whole show someone was talking pretty much the whole time, the music did what it was supposed to do: set the mood without getting in the way. (I guess that also says something about the quality of the demos that were submitted!)

That's not to say that we shouldn't create the highest quality masters we possibly can, because a high bit rate mp3 made from a great sounding mix is going to sound better than one that came from a not so great sounding mix. After about 192kbps, the sound quality of the mp3 is more a factor of the original CD quality (or better) file than the mp3 compression. In other words: "Garbage in, garbage out".

I wouldn't sweat that the screeners and potential clients listen to mp3s. These folks hear a lot of music and they are qualified to hear what's in the music and can also discern if the composer knows what they are doing or not in the production department as well.

And yes, if they sign your music, they will request it in the format that works for their business and their clients. Here's a list of formats that I am asked to supply to the various libraries I am signed with:

1. 320 kbps mp3 for demo posting on website
2. 48K AIFF 16 bit
3. 48K WAV 16 bit
4. 44.1 AIFF 16 bit
5. 44.1 WAV 16 bit
6. 128 kbps mp3 for demo posting on website

Most libraries and publishers will be set up to accept the finished mixes via ftp. I haven't sent in a CD in quite some time.

Sorry for the long answer.

Mazz

[bassman]

"based on what little difference I hear between the two examples I posted".

Well I must admit when I've been brave enough to put my wife through a blind test her
answer is usually "they all sound the same"

[fret17]

Bassman,Dave, Mazz.....Thanks Guys...I knew I could count on you for the clearer picture....

[mandycan]

Thank so much for your feedback Dave.

That never happens (returned for non-broadcast-quality because it was an MP3).

That did happen with a Yes/No only listing.
http://www3.telus.net/zone56/music/NextToMe1X601X30.mp3

The screener did leave this:
Reasons not Forwarded:
Not Master/Broadcast Quality
Music

I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the above mp3. It was produced using Propellerhead Reason 24bit sample drums, synth and strings, the guitars and bass are are real. What is it about this that is not broadcast q?

Thanks to everyone who replied.