Myspace-Player Encoding Tricks?

[trym^^]

whats the reason behind the drastic differences in quality
on certain material played through myspace?
i've been experimenting for a while now with various formats
and rates and i start to think it has to be a mix issue.
check out dead can dance or tocadisco on myspace for positive
examples, first songs respectively.

 

[AudioGeekZine]

just don't!

use a better player, why go through the fucking hassle.
Unless of course you're a mastering engineer and need to know this for your clients.

 

[Cyanide_Anima]

just embed the soundclick player in your myspace page and disable the shitty stock one. easy.

 

[fade_2_black]

Some bands do want the stock player simply to get their playcounts up though - kinda dumb way to rate a band but I guess it does go like that in a lot of places now days.

 

[Lowberg]

Maybe the shittyness of myspace players will make people actually want to BUY unsigned band's music haha

 

[trym^^]

it has to be the builtin-player for various reasons.
so my theory is that mixes with lots of lush reverb and information
around 2khz, before the 7 khz lowpass of the myspace-encoder kicks in,
result in better quality. plus theres a very significant difference
between a 48/24 aif and a 256 mp3 upload. but still, the examples posted,
apart from benefits of superb mixes, sound better. any thoughts?

 

[James Murphy]

the actual limit in size for a song file that myspace allows is 8mb.... so encode from the CD or full res wave to the hightest mp3 bit constant bit rate that you can while staying under 8mb. that's the way i milk it for more quality.

 

[~BURNY~]

just embed the soundclick player in your myspace page and disable the shitty stock one. easy.

The sounclick player sucks almost as much.

 

[trym^^]

the actual limit in size for a song file that myspace allows is 8mb.... so encode from the CD or full res wave to the hightest mp3 bit constant bit rate that you can while staying under 8mb. that's the way i milk it for more quality.

not anymore, just tested uploading a 20 mb aif. i've gotten much better results than hires mp3 that way. no cutting edge though.
your stuff on myspace sounds really good actually. do you encode within pt?

 

[ahjteam]

have you tried to send a mix that has headroom on it before you send them to myspace? like peaks at -3dB instead of -0dB? does myspace affect its sound as much?

edit: Myspace also encodes the tracks to 96kbps 22050Hz Joint Stereo mp3 and has a lowpass filter, my guess that it's 6dB/oct starting somewhere from 6-7khz? Anyone wanna test this? Put a straight clip of white noise to see what it does to the sound

 

[wishtheend]

Yeah, I always assumed they reencoded it for the player once we upload it. If we are able to find out exactly what happens, then if we did that preupload, I'm sure there wouldn't be nearly as many nasty artifacts.

 

[Ihsahn1981]

I hear uploading the song in mono helps.. Its a catch 22 though..

 

[Meisterjäger]

I actually have a friend who called Myspace about it. Apart from the player sucking anyway, if your music is encoded to anything over 128kbps Myspace compress it further themselves, and that drastically changes the sound, I guess because their encoders are crap or whatever. Try uploading music at 128kbps... it'll still suck massively , but not so hard ¯\(°_o)/¯