Guest Syre Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 I can't judge a track with that low quality... At least 128 kbit. Are you lacking in server space? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PuuhaMees Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 r u a sound engineer or a music lover ?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Soulhunter Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 Both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syre Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 Well, do you keep all your mp3s in 96kbit, just because it doesn't matter what quality the "sound" is in, just as long as you can hear a bass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valerio Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 The goal of contest is just for a first (and general) listening purpose. You know also at 128 the sound quality is poor.. the winners of the contest will have a chance to obtain a CD release and after that people could listen it at full quality and real support underground and new comer artists !! I'm sure all of you will be able to understand is a track is better than another at 96 Kbit ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest remember the 1st contest Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 it$ evident that the aim of the conte$t isnt to spread ur music and get known cuz u r an unknown artist. by the other hand i would be very happy if I, as a winner, could make some money 4 my work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest psyfi Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 what's then the aim of the contest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JanUa Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 to know if your ready to become a real artist in psy sound's ... @!#$ the ego ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Children Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 Well there are 3 reasons : 1) Needs less server space indeed (we are talking about Gigabytes here (we had 2 Gb last contest and I'm sure we'll have the same for this one, even if the size of the Tracks is 2 times shorter), that's very hard to find so much space) 2) Permits people who don't have a good bandwidth to dload more Tracks 3) Isn't enough for people to satisfy with this quality & not buy the future compilation. You can doubt a label who invests on the release of a new compil prefer to avoid everybody to already have the Tracks in 192 Kbps (or even 128) for free, there's lots of chances sales will be much lower than with 96 Kbps free versions of the Tracks. As the aim of this contest is to give to the winners a REAL chance to get signed & eventually make a debut album in the future, that's better to decrease the quality of free Tracks in order to keep a chance for the comp to be released. We really think 96 Kbps is enough to judge the interest of a Track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ralih Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 well I think music should be the main thnig not the possibility to make money.. and 96 Kbps is really crappy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Children Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 Music is the main thing, we won't get more money if INPSYDE MEDIA get more, but winners WILL get money for their work and will have chances to reach other labels for debut album possibilities if they are promoted through these compilations. Anyway as you say money is not the most important, for us the most important thing is to make the winners evolve from the amateur/unknown status to a more professional/known one, and a compilation can't be a better way for them to become considered on the scene (by labels & DJ's) ... and I don't see the word "money" in this objective, money is part of the consequences, not the cause of this contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CrusadeR Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 I kinga agree, with Children's statement.. And sure i would love to hear them in 192 and more , but it will increase the selling, and i don't want to imagine about the decrease of server space and monthly traffic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cujo Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 Well, syre? the sound quality is not the same i agree. but you want 128? that is also a shitty khz,,,, if you are not satisfied with the Kbit range. don't listen to the music!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mE Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 hm.. there is a such thing as 112 bitrate.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pswede Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 I must say that 96 kbps is better for those who make minimal, right? Because those of you who make full-on psychedelia with tons of sounds will have less quality? Am I right or wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cujo Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 I think you are wrong. i'd would be the same???? 1 sound? or 100 sounds mixed? at this quality, does not affect the sounds more or less. if you had 100 sounds , each on 96 Kbps.. then it would be different yes :-) but people usually don't make music like this. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pswede Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 Anyways, I think 96kbps is good enough to judge if the track has SOMETHING interesting about it (some tracks are just built on plain soundquality, those will not be so easy to judge, too bad...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cujo Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 yes,, i agree. if a track is wellmade. you should be able to judge it from 96 Kbps. last time , i know a lot of people complained about the sounds quality of many of the tracks.. because they where made with crappy production, but in hi quality mp3 files, and heard on computer speakers. meaning that a low qual. file, with good production, would sound worse. meaning that if this should be judged correctly, then all tracks should be heard on a big system :-) /´C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.