an amendment to the guide regarding audio

mudholestomper · Post by **mudholestomper** » Sun May 30, 2004 12:24 am

after pariousing this sites AMV guide, and in particular the audio section, i feel a rebuttment is nessary:

Also, to be honest, if you can get a CD version of your song please do. Don't use a downloaded mp3 unless it is absolutely necessary as your audio quality will suffer through re-encoding. It's just as bad as using divxes as a video source. Buy CDs, ok?

No, it wont as there is really no reason that would nessitate re-encoding the audio.... unless you plan to edit it, but even then i dont see a problem.
i dont remember whare but i Do remember seeing a recommendation that IF an mp3 was used to start the video edit at the binning of the song.
this is hardly necessary as there is a remarkibly easy work-around.
it is a simple matter to edit how ever much silence you need or want into mp3 iself for intro or epillog. this wont effect the audio qaulity one bit.
in this manner there is no reason to convert the mp3 to wav and back for insertion into the video.

mudholestomper · Post by **mudholestomper** » Sun May 30, 2004 12:39 am

and this:

Buy CDs, ok?

often, that just isnt possable. most espcially if the artist isnt published.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Sun May 30, 2004 3:20 am

It's more than just a quality concern, it's giving the artist its dues.

Also, not all videos are designed for internet distribution - I certainly wouldn't want to have to submit to a convention having used an mp3 source.

mudholestomper · Post by **mudholestomper** » Mon May 31, 2004 1:33 am

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:It's more than just a quality concern, it's giving the artist its dues.

Also, not all videos are designed for internet distribution - I certainly wouldn't want to have to submit to a convention having used an mp3 source.

yes, i realise that. again i reiterate that with some artists that isnt possable, at least not in a monitary sense.

you wouldnt submit a vid that used an mp3 192 bitrate source? whyever not? unless the listener has a kick-ASS sound system he/she wont notice much differance at all. (even then a lot wont.)
*shrug* well, to each their own.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Mon May 31, 2004 1:46 am

I can notice the difference between 192kbps mp3 and a cd on my computer speakers and some convention speakers have a much better dynamic range than my crappy computer speakers.

I'm not going to change that part of the guide. If people want to use mp3 source then I can't stop them but I'm not going to advise them to. When there are no other options people will use whatever they can anyway, what I say isnt going to change that.

Farlo · Post by **Farlo** » Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 am

yeah, why use anything other than cd quality, unless its absolutely necessary?

the only thing i could see using it for would be as you said "unpublished artist", but most artist like that will actually send you higher quality material if you ask for it.

why do i say this, because it works. I dropped a message at a bands message board saying i was making a video using one of their songs, and they sent me cds, free of charge. they were just happy someone appreciated their music, and wanted to promote their music for them.

at any rate im sure one of the unpublished artists would gladly send you a .wav version.

mudholestomper · Post by **mudholestomper** » Mon May 31, 2004 1:18 pm

el_farlo wrote:yeah, why use anything other than cd quality, unless its absolutely necessary?

the only thing i could see using it for would be as you said "unpublished artist", but most artist like that will actually send you higher quality material if you ask for it.

why do i say this, because it works. I dropped a message at a bands message board saying i was making a video using one of their songs, and they sent me cds, free of charge. they were just happy someone appreciated their music, and wanted to promote their music for them.

at any rate im sure one of the unpublished artists would gladly send you a .wav version.

oh i do agree, but if you cant FIND the artist you pretty much have to "make do" with what you have. =\

Unfound · Post by **Unfound** » Mon May 31, 2004 5:50 pm

mudholestomper wrote:
el_farlo wrote:yeah, why use anything other than cd quality, unless its absolutely necessary?

the only thing i could see using it for would be as you said "unpublished artist", but most artist like that will actually send you higher quality material if you ask for it.

why do i say this, because it works. I dropped a message at a bands message board saying i was making a video using one of their songs, and they sent me cds, free of charge. they were just happy someone appreciated their music, and wanted to promote their music for them.

at any rate im sure one of the unpublished artists would gladly send you a .wav version.
oh i do agree, but if you cant FIND the artist you pretty much have to "make do" with what you have. =\

Thing is, I highly doubt you can find mp3s on the artist unless they're on a CD. Most .mp3s are compressed straight off the CDs and unless you're talking about some live audio or TV audio that doesn't air anymore, chances are, you can buy it somewhere.

mudholestomper · Post by **mudholestomper** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:24 am

Unfound wrote: Thing is, I highly doubt you can find mp3s on the artist unless they're on a CD. Most .mp3s are compressed straight off the CDs and unless you're talking about some live audio or TV audio that doesn't air anymore, chances are, you can buy it somewhere.

if you truely believe that, then you my "freind" are missing out on a LOT!

mudholestomper · Post by **mudholestomper** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:39 am

unfound, you would be surprised at the number of artists (they call themselvs "trackers") who make music as a hobby. not to make money, and thusly are not published. insted, they throw their music up on various places on the net for the public to parouse and enjoy.
mp3.com was infamous for that in its day. sadly, that site is crap today in its revamped "beta" format but there are other, many other, sites that offer free downloads of an artists music in mp3 format.
for some, this is a way to get exposure in the hopes of getting published. but like previously stated, for many others it is not. it depends on the artist. i have hundreds of tracks by and unpublished artists. hell, for many the artist him or herself is totally unknown unless he/she encoded it in the song. many didnt and dont.
much of this type of music youll find amiturish, but there are many that are master works easally riveling the best of the Published musicians. finding these gems admist the rubble may be time consumming and or tedious at times, but when you find one or more it makes it all worth the effort. easally.
to me, what is termed "main stream" for music is mostly crap anyway.