Acoustica - Software should be easy to use

Internet release format

Use this forum for discussing music in general, rather than specific Acoustica products.

Moderators: Acoustica Dan, Acoustica Greg, Acoustica Chris, Acoustica Eric

Kuba W
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:46 pm

Internet release format

Postby Kuba W » Wed May 30, 2018 7:11 pm

Hello everyone.
I'm preparing some 6-track minialbums for download from the website. MP3 seems to be the most obvious choice for the file format to me, but I wonder if you suggest something else. Is there anything even more universal? To be playable on any gear, fair with size and quality, but also easily burnable to the CD? I know it should be done separately for each occasion, but as for underground purposes, I'd like to have it as universal as possible. WAV? - good quality, good for burning, size reasonable for today's conditions (~250MB per 6-track ep), but never came across any wav releases; MP4? - almost twice as much kbps as MP3, but size grows much, much bigger; FLAC? - never got close to them, worth trying? how 'accesible' are they for ordinary user? OGG? AAC? I also have a possibility of converting to almost any format with Vegas, so it doesn't have to be available in Mixcraft. I'll probably end up with MP3s, but it's better to ask before than after...
I have also took a look in here: ... 25&t=22843 and that makes me ask another question. The article is about 'refurbished' MP3s, but now I wonder, if I should expect any coding/compression differences between MP3 exported from Mixcraft (with Ozone applied on master) and Mixcraft WAV export converted to MP3 with standalone Ozone? Or Vegas for example? Or for the fresh homemade MP3 320kbps = 320kbps and based on the same source gives the same results, no matter what soft is being used? Looking forward for your opinions.

User avatar
Mark Bliss
Posts: 5685
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Out there

Re: Internet release format

Postby Mark Bliss » Thu May 31, 2018 6:28 pm

Well, there are no simple answers. And I am a bit lost on the roundabout question and the "refurbished" term.

But if it helps, Mixcraft uses the LAME encoder mentioned at the end of the article as being superior if MP3 is your chosen format.

The article is about a method for determining the "quality" or type of MP3.

Your decision involves the website/app you choose for distribution, and the level of file quality you hope to offer.
In some areas, bandwidth is probably adequate for higher quality file offerings. In others it would be problematic.

MP3 remains the current popular format for streaming, though this seems to be on the verge of change in many cases. On the other hand, for download offerings wav remains the high quality standard. Everything else falls somewhere in between.

If the choice were mine, I'd probably consider offering a choice of format for download. Streaming remains somewhat constrained by the current popular norms and depends largely on your distribution application.

Hope that helps. If not, maybe the question needs to be clarified.
Stay in tune, Mark



Kuba W
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:46 pm

Re: Internet release format

Postby Kuba W » Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:43 pm

Hi, thanks for the reply.

I meant that the lossy 128kbps MP3s were downloaded and compressed again to 320. And also that this was not the point of my question, but just made me think about other side of MP3 quality, whether all of my soft will make the same use of this 320kbps. I'll read more abot this LAME encoder and alternatives, but if you say it's superior - I won't have to go outside the Mixcraft anyways.

About distribution. Streaming - YouTube, and with this one I'm fine. I render 512kbps MP4s in Vegas and they do the job, even after YT's processing. For the download - paid Sendspace, folder compressed to .rar, direct link placed on my own website, free download.
I'm mostly between choosing MP3 or WAV. In size it would be 6x10MB against 6x40MB per release, so let's say it is affordable with the quality gained (or kept rather) on mind. But something wonders me here. You can buy the MP3, you can buy OGG, AAC... Maybe that's because I buy the music on CDs, but I never saw any 'Buy WAV' offer. Never received any album in WAVs. Like WAV only had two destinations - being burned to CD, or compressed to MP3. So maybe there's a reason for that and I don't know it? Or it is just size-related? I also hope that most gear reading MP3 will also use WAV.

If there is no downsides of using WAV for it, then I'll probably just give them a good comparing session, and see if the difference is worth making the packages four times bigger. In other words, I'll go for WAV if the MP3s make me to unhappy. I'll also have to find out whether burning MP3s to Audio-CD at least keeps the same MP3 quality, or cause some more damage on the way...

Return to “General Music Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest