The forum · September 2003 – July 2004 › PROMOTE YOUR WORK
I am lost?
my self asteem is bad now...
Started by strukt · 21 posts · 132 views · this thread in the Internet Archive
strukt5 Mar 2004, 00:18 Hi,
i dont know... i think this came out to be pretty good, for me that is.
What do you think?, a little cheesy maybe?
http://m1.680.telia.com/~u68004584/Strukt.Failed.Voyage.mp3
oh well, some feedback would be nice ^_^ephex28 Mar 2004, 03:18 link didn't work :wacko:strukt4 Apr 2004, 23:05 bbrriiaann5 Apr 2004, 03:23 if you could rework this music into 128 kbps, 256 is ridiculous!! I'll review after that?
B.Guest5 Apr 2004, 07:48 It's placed on a fast server so the speed shouldn't be an issue.R3v0Lu7iOn 195 Apr 2004, 10:24 It's placed on a fast server so the speed shouldn't be an issue.
well downloading @ 23kbps doesnt seem very fast to me <_< and im on broardband :Pstrukt5 Apr 2004, 15:35 Hmmm....
i'm downloading at 135kb sec, so.,...hmm.. it should be fast enough?
Strange really, its on a 10mbit server and it shouldn't be lagged.ephex10 Apr 2004, 04:44 128kbps is toooo low! Anything over 192 is fine for me. Personally I like ogg better :P
Anyway, nice track ;) Obviously you put a lot of work into it, and it didn't turn out bad at all [lacks that 'proffessional' sound, but you will gain that over time so don't worry too much]. It's rather late so I can't comment on how the mixdown is because i might wake people up if I turn my monitors up too loud. Everything sounds OK from what I can tell though ;)..
Keep it up!
Chrisbbrriiaann12 Apr 2004, 03:03 128 kbs is not too low, check out other threads about t[]c's work on 128 kbs!
anyways for those of us on dial up it's hard and too costlyliquifaction12 Apr 2004, 15:17 a few things here.. a 10mbit server is Increadbly slow.. most webservers are 2gbit +.. And 10mbit is just a speed not a bandwidth measure ment too.. Umm.. the difference between 160kbps and 256kbps mp3 in quality is barely noticable without £200 Sennheirser headphones.. A 96kbps wma is greater quality than a 128kbps mp3.. just a little bit of useful compression info.. listening to mp3 music 96kps or less can give you a headache over a prolonged period of listening and the same with 64kbps or less wma.. ogg's are also pretty cool.. but wma9 is the highest quality compression currently available..
anyways.. to the tune..Its a good tune..although I dont like the synths.. they need abit more sawtooth and a bit more distortion..but as too the mastering..almost perfect.. excellent job there..but a tiny bit of high vol distortion on the bass..
..marcstrukt12 Apr 2004, 17:30 Ok,
maybe i shouldn't encoded the MP3 in a so high bitrate. But i will not go under 192kbps.
Thanks for the feedback also, i tried to put some work in the mastering but it's hard, really hard to get it sounding just "right".
:unsure:liquifaction13 Apr 2004, 11:48 well, really I dont think it sounds perfect..but technically it is almost perfect mastering..just my opinion..
..marcstrukt13 Apr 2004, 12:03 Define perfect. :)
Seriously, it's really nice getting some feedback on my productions, helps me realize what could be better and what can be changed.
I could try to master something for someone if you wish....but don't expect professional quality. I only use wavelab with some really good plugins and my tannoy studio monitors...
And soon a pair of Sennheiser headphones :)liquifaction13 Apr 2004, 12:50 perfect is to have 20hz - 20,000hz all with equal volumes.. Usually it is impossible..as it wouldnt be much of a tune, but you can master parts of tunes to within 1% of it..That can help make tunes better..I dont need any1 to master for me.. I can do it fine myself thank you..
I hope u can make more good tunes like that :D..
..marcephex16 Apr 2004, 20:08 WMA is a joke! .. ogg completely blows it away. WMA is also a propietary piece of shit, meaning linux users [including myself when i'm not working on a new song!] would not be able to play the song because micro$oft doesn't want them too.liquifaction17 Apr 2004, 09:54 wma is the most efficient codec..I also use ogg compression for wav files in samples..but wma is still more efficient..Linux isnt designed for music production and neither are pc's macs are what you need there..but i am just saying wmav9 is the most efficeint codec..
..marcbbrriiaann17 Apr 2004, 14:29 WMA .... liquid is really one on one with the Fat Cats of this world isn't he?
Why in gods name would we want to contribute to Bill Gates money heap at his bank???liquifaction17 Apr 2004, 21:16 i dont like microsoft..but as they have the most money they can put millions into developing free codecs..so it is exploiting them more using wma..as they arent getting any money out..and they put tonnes in!..
I have a linux, acorn and a Mac computers..so Im with you..
..marcliquifaction18 Apr 2004, 09:42 i have done a survery now..by asking random people what they think of the quality of the formats..We found out that wma is better than ogg @ high quality files..such as 5.1 mixes of over 500kbps..and ogg is better at low bit rate files such as 40kbps..wma got a slightly higher score in the end because it is quicker to encode/decode..but different formats are better for different things..
..marcephex23 Apr 2004, 20:55 liquifaction wrote: i dont like microsoft..but as they have the most money they can put millions into developing free codecs..so it is exploiting them more using wma..as they arent getting any money out..and they put tonnes in!..
I have a linux, acorn and a Mac computers..so Im with you..
..marc
that is exactly what microsoft wants... the more their codec is used, the more power they gain in the audio world, and thus making a very nice entry into home theatre.
even if linux isn't suited for production [yet if you ask me! :P all it needs is vst to be ported along with cubase or reason and some major synths & effects...], doesn't mean you should deny the rights to listen to music!liquifaction24 Apr 2004, 15:10 If you want to make money out of music..you make it for the masses..thats all I need to say..eg.128kbps mp3..who cant play that?
..marc