Music Producers Guild - Blog - Weekly Debate - the sound quality of on-line music files ...

Weekly Debate - the sound quality of on-line music files

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are submitted by individuals and in no way represent the official position of the Music Producers Guild (UK), which cannot accept responsibility thereof.

Posted on March 15, 2010 @ 12:36 PM most recent comment at January 29, 2012 @ 08:53 PM

How can music producers ensure quality control, or influence the audio quality of the music files made available by on-line aggregators, once masters have been delivered for distribution?

Comments (5)

posted almost 2 years ago by mickglossop

Apparently, the encoding of master music files into the mp3 format is carried out by the aggregators - the companies which distribute digital music files on-line. There is no consistency in the adoption of this critical process, which means that, if you download the same music tack from several different on-line outlets, the sound quality of the files is very likely to be different in each case.

This is like having the shop assistant at an HMV record store supervising the mastering of your record - undesirable, you might think...

What is needed is a standardised and controlled process of encoding files for on-line distribution, and it should be specified and supervised by record producers, it being the final stage in the process of record production.

The problem is - how do we achieve this?

posted almost 2 years ago by mickglossop

This thread from the MPG Twitter feed...

TheHuxCapacitor said:
@ukMPG the best way to ensure the quality of files available online is to ensure artists host quality files best eg is probably #bandcamp

MG replied:
@TheHuxCapacitor - you're missing the point. No matter how good your source files, they'll be screwed by bad mp3 encoding

thesoundmill said:
@ukMPG While I'd like my music to be heard in the quality format, you can't choose how your audience choose to listen to it. bigger bandwith

MG replied:
@thesoundmill - even if they choose mp3, we can at least attempt to supervise the quality of the encoding. This does not occur right now.

calumchance said:
@ukMPG @thesoundmill or develop a better quality, if larger in filesize, compressed audio format.

MG replied:
@calumchance - yes (MPG is working on a new initiative) but its usage must be tightly monitored otherwise file quality will be compromised

posted almost 2 years ago by teepee

I believe the biggest problem is the aggregators. Often they are entrusting the encoding to people who don't fully understand what they are doing and are simply trained to put a CD in here and extract the file there.

The first danger point is using a commercial CD to "rip" the files - there is no guarantee that particular CD is the best source so at least they should use supplied WAV files. However, I have had a discussion with one major aggregator that bordered on surreal when I offered WAV files for them to use. He asked me to send a CD and I offered the WAV files. He said he couldn't handle those so I asked what he made from the ripped CD. He said WAV files. I naturally pointed out that this was what I was offering him but he insisted his WAV files were different because they were in the computer!!! I ended up persuading him to accept a CD with WAV files on it but don't know whether he managed to cope with this unaided!

The next danger point is checking the files are complete and correct. One album I produced recently went up on iTunes with a 4.30 song listed as 0.28 secs because the encoder had crashed but no checks were made.

If downloads are going to be the delivery method of the future then we need to control the process during the mastering stage.

posted almost 2 years ago by calumchance

teepee: can i ask what aggregator this was? At this stage, I hope that your experiences are not true to all aggregators. Making a large assumption, I would believe that a company as large as Apple with their iTunes store would have employed people with some skill/knowledge in audio file formats, though of course this could be the aggregator you were referring to. I hope not. Should I be lucky to enough to achieve a role in the music industry, I hope that it will be at a time when internet audio distribution is on a clear rise. Perhaps that already is the case: to discuss iTunes again, they now distribute entirely at 256kpbs AAC (http://www.apple.com/itunes/features/#purchasingmusic), which is a better compression than mp3 as I understand it. As @ukmpg have been mentioning, they have involvement in a new audio format, and presumably as such a new method/code of compression. I will be interesting to see what tradeoff there may be between the size and quality, having said that an more efficient compression should render the file smaller at the same quality over mp3. Even then, internet speeds are increasing and the price of hard disk space is always coming down (for both home and portable devices) and we should soon be capable of an excellent as well as portable audio file format. I look forward to the dismissal of mp3 and will welcome any new, better quality formats, all being well with compatibility (AAC not being so good on that front). Calum

posted 12 days ago by Valdera

That is a difficult question, I think you should ask report writers about it!

Add a comment about this post

Weekly Debate - the sound quality of on-line music files

Credit Where Credit Is Due