|
Groundrules?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Luke Terry |
tbh there is too much of here is a sample of my new amazing tune or a full rip at 8kpbs...
how about imposing rules of say either a full clip 2-3 mins @ 192k or a full tune at no lower than 96k?
of course this will have to be ran past the other mods + swamper but it's getting beyond a joke in here.
discuss... |
|
|
| DRM |
| i totally agree and am all for some new rules along these lines |
|
|
| Trancevision |
| yes. I support this! |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| Yes, good idea. |
|
|
| FC`Noir |
| I'm down for this. |
|
|
| DJPrototypeX |
| sounds gravy to me.. y? cuz wit a good 3min sample, alot of the elements can be heard cleary with a 192kb rip.. and anythin lower than a 96kb is too muddy and alot of the elements are too murky to be given str8 critisizm.. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
finally!
i dont mind hearing samples at 160kb but not lower. |
|
|
| hey cheggy |
And what about those who don't want to share their songs because they plan on sending it to lables. A lot of tracks are just posted so people can listen to them and they don't want hi-res samples floating around the net. I think people should be able to encode at what they like.
As for not letting in samples below 160k, most free sites only allow 128 and nothing else, so are you saying that for those of us who can't afford our own web hosting, we shouldn't be allowed to put our tracks up here for review. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by hey cheggy
And what about those who don't want to share their songs because they plan on sending it to lables. A lot of tracks are just posted so people can listen to them and they don't want hi-res samples floating around the net. I think people should be able to encode at what they like.
As for not letting in samples below 160k, most free sites only allow 128 and nothing else, so are you saying that for those of us who can't afford our own web hosting, we shouldn't be allowed to put our tracks up here for review. |
well i dont get it why a sample should have so much influence on the release..if you wanne promote your tune, and want it to get known at least give people an idea how it sounds..
128 aint that bad either, but 160 is the best for a 2-3 mins sample imo, further of all there was a tiny period where i saw samples of 96 kb or even 56 or something that low, and they were like 1-2 mins..
what do you except us to feedback on such stuff?
back the days when i joined Tranceaddicts, heard many great tunes that i still have on my computer, astropolis, silverglow, purgatory or novelty pioneers or many more..these people wanted to introduce them self probably and they shared their music with us fully..now they are good and got singed etc, i can very releate in to the fact that i only see samples of the pros..but what is raelly happening lately, the new people or not so advanced people yey, they all copying the ideas of posting low samples, low lenght, and with the idea it get signed and lets face it, some of productions just dont have that potential.
thats my 2 cents
id like to add also, i really enjoyed the music the full versions i saw on TA back then 1 year ago or so, i liked it even more than the useuall tiesto, armin etc.. stuff, its just samples now :( |
|
|
| Luke Terry |
| quote: | Originally posted by hey cheggy
And what about those who don't want to share their songs because they plan on sending it to lables. |
then don't share them |
|
|
| Jay M |
| Everything 128kbps or higher is fine with me. How about ogg rules? They are less kbps for same quality, aren't they? |
|
|
|
|
