Audio Profiles: they need to be rethought

Category: Zone BBS Suggestions and Feedback

Post 1 by Nick6489 (11 years a Zoner) on Tuesday, 10-Mar-2015 0:06:15

I’d really, really, really like Audio Profiles to be rethought. I don’t care how, just rethink them somehow as almost anything is better than this.

I just uploaded a new audio profile, but I found myself having to bring the bitrate down lower and lower and lower before the Zone would accept it. The bitrate ended up being at 128 KbPS when I uploaded it, rendering the Zone’s conversion algorithm completely unnecessary…except for the fact that it converted anyway. Now, I have a second generation mp3 encode for an audio profile which kind of spoils it a bit. We’re paying for the web space to upload a good, well-produced audio profile, but the system forces you to mangle it, then mangles it by itself anyway. Can we please rethink this? At the very least, have it check the bitrate of an Mp3 so that, if it finds a 128 K MP3, it doesn’t reconvert?

Thank you for reading.

Post 2 by KC8PNL (The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.) on Saturday, 14-Mar-2015 17:28:07

While I'd love for this to happen, I'm afraid it'll be moved to file 13 with the rest of the suggestions. And the average user isn't an audiophile, so they wouldn't know the difference between a 128 k and 320K recording. maybe if they listened closely, but the average user wouldn't know how to encode for the difference. Remember, many users record their audio profiles over the phone. LOL

Post 3 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Saturday, 14-Mar-2015 17:37:03

I agree. For the purposes of audio profiles (and I am somewhat of an audiofile) I honestly don't think most people will care. Most things will be fine at 128K. if you've got something amazing you've created you feel is worth more than that, you could always put it up on sound cloud and link to it in your profile.

Post 4 by season (the invisible soul) on Saturday, 14-Mar-2015 21:02:12

I second Scott, 128kbps or 320kpbs for most general user or listener will have no difference. If it bothering you so much, maybe you can put it as an external link? upload it to dropbox or drive or wherever, and post the link on your profile...

Post 5 by rdfreak (THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE-BLUE KANGA-KICKIN AUSIE) on Sunday, 15-Mar-2015 22:02:20

yep agree three, four, five?

Post 6 by forereel (Just posting.) on Sunday, 15-Mar-2015 22:19:58

What KBPS?

Post 7 by Ryan95 (Generic Zoner) on Friday, 20-Mar-2015 8:07:45

I honestly have to agree with 3, 4, and 5 on this one. Unfortunately, seeing as how most audio profiles are done over the phone I don't think this will happen.

Post 8 by JH_Radio (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Thursday, 26-Mar-2015 12:33:28

I agree with 3 4 and 5, but I'd upload lossless, especially if its something that is more than speaking an and is actually produced content. lol.

Post 9 by Dave_H (the boringest guy you'll ever know) on Friday, 27-Mar-2015 16:32:39

Those wanting to put up something better than, say, a 128-bit mono mp3 file should just put it onto their favorite file sharing service, and link in text profile.

Post 10 by Nick6489 (11 years a Zoner) on Friday, 27-Mar-2015 17:44:22

It's not that it's a 128 K profile that I have a problem with. Granted, 128K doesn't sound spectacular, but it can be dealt with if encoded properly. But when I've uploaded something already encoded at 128 KBPS, and the file size is the same give or take a few bits as the zone's encoder, the zone's encoded version should be discarded as it is unnecessary. I know people probably don't notice, but it just doesn't make sense to double encode when the original upload is 128 K anyway.

Post 11 by JH_Radio (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 31-Mar-2015 18:51:48

not only does it not make sense to double encode, but you lose more quality if you encode over and over like that anyway