Saving space and $$$

Just a thought...

I beleive that the more space we use on the servers costs$$$.

So to save space and money shouldn't we just post our songs in mp3 because .wav files take a lot more space?

---

Depends, Rob.

If your music is ready and to be consumed on normal devices (like smartphones etc.), MP3 is surely enough.

But as long as you still want to manipulate tracks, I prefer 48k (for video anyway), and .wav (uncompressed). When using some tools I even oversample in my DAW to 96k to avoid artefacts (but export at 48k later). So as long as tracks go from one to the other to improve them, quality should IMO be kept high.

But yes, in principle you're right, that costs, so we have to support Wikiloops.

Just my 2 (Euro-) Cents...

Cheers,
Wolfgang

---

Edited by wjl on January 19 2019 17:17

Well it was just a thought...

I am no specialist in recording. I try to do the most with the equipment I use. Maybe I'm a little deaf but I do not see much difference between .mp3 and .wav

In any case I do not want to create controversy on this subject but I simply wonder... amateur as I am.

Maybe people with more knowledge will help me to understand more. Just that.

---

Maybe this question should go to Richard and ask him how much of a $$ difference it would make. From previous discussions I don't think it's that much of a cost compared to the maintenance time. As it is Richard has stepped back form this (somewhat) so those costs are currently less.

Personally I'd be happy to provide HD tracks as I know that there are those (like wjl and OliVBee) who enjoy editing. Unfortunately they seldom/never use them, so I don't bother posting in HD any longer.

As a discussion point it's interesting to consider what is more important: the quality of the sound or the quality of the playing. You can have HD crap music and it's still not worth listening to. If you have good music that's not HD it's still good music.

---

I must admit that even if I could upload my tracks in .wav, I always uploadthem in .mp3. Maybe I am wrong but I think that the sound is not too bad.

You are as old as you can remember...

---

Will not upload wave files from now on. As they are much larger files. Will also delete any that I have posted if I can. Most sites only allow Pro members to upload wave files. I understand the cut backs. If you want to play you got to pay. I have only a free member account. My time here at Wiki has been a joy. More than many will ever know. <3

Guys, hold your horses :)

It is nice and cool that you care about Wikiloops, much appreciated. However, Please don't delete anything, and please continue as usual. If there was a reason that would justify deleting or not uploading HD files etc, we would announce that officially, or alternatively delete them through the database, or not allow large files uploads etc. etc.

I can assure you, everything is cool and no need to panic :) Just enjoy Wikiloops and the music and the splendid company of people here :) . Peace :W

---

Edited by TeeGee on January 20 2019 01:15

I never sais that we need to delete files or stop to upload HD files. I was just questionning myself and I wanted to have opinions on the subject.

---

One question to specialists in mixing. Because I don't know much about these things.

-You download a track that was posted in .mp3

-You add your part and post one track it in .wav

Is the quality of what you posted better than the original track?

---

Answer is no Robert ! because mp3 is a destructive type of compression format : once data is gone it's lost and there's no way to rebuild it no matter the format you transform into afterward ...

This is why i never mix from a mp3 track ! i'm spending alot of time and effort working on tracks and unless there's absolutely no way to get the take in an uncompressed format i won't spend this kind of time on mp3 tracks ...

---

I agree :)

I'm trying to get better with mixer and the wave files are much better than mp3s