Forums

  • avatar
    135 sounds
    359 posts


    @AlienXXX

    I don't feel offended, but thank you (-; I deal with large projects from time to time. Therefore - I know certain (but concrete) issues that I did not recognized before, and I see certain solutions (measurable reasons) that could perhaps be the vital (and not potential only) point or part of it. Question in this topic was about popularity versus quality. It is a good question if seen as a part of greater wholeness. And it has certain implications. This morning I wrote a reply to @juskiddink, but forum was dead, so I put a copy here.

    "Sure. I'm just talking about reality. If there would be no people to use these sounds, then - what for would be such wonderful collection? It's co-existence and co-operation and co-creation, what matters. What is the difference between living human body and dead human body? The same matter inside, but dynamics is not the same. Do you like dead bodies or living people? Greater perspective. It's about sounds AND people (uploaders, downloaders, creators, listeners, managers, debaters and so on)."

    Accessibility = tags, but if you have 100 000 items to manage (or more), and the "social engine" effectivenes is somewhat low in comparison to such database, then - what else could help to re-shape existing database? And it's not only about downloaders, but also about uploaders who want to be downloaded and seen. Similar mechanisms are very wanted on music market, because popular CDs become more popular, and new/unkown CDs stay unknown in the shadow (even if they are top shelf); market is overwhelmed. So it would be a good idea to focus on some fair solutions, that would help to change such disproportions. I mean "attractiveness", not "limitations". New directions.

    (-;

    http://planetaziemia.net - independent research on sound and consciousness
    http://conscious-sound.bandcamp.com - best sounds for extraordinary inner experiences
  • avatar
    316 sounds
    118 posts


    Just for an exercise I have attempted to remove the clipping of the file in question and restored the waveform as best I could using Steinberg Wavelab. You can hear the result here:

    http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=116319

    THen I played around with it and added some distortion back again.....tongue

    http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=116320

    And here a gated afffect:

    http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=116318

  • avatar
    163 sounds
    56 posts


    I've just realized 99% of people who downloaded my sounds are 100% downloaders who didn't contribute at all. I find this ratio quite upsetting. Fortunatelly Freesound has grown to very nice resource even with this kind of mentality.

    Tags... some tag-suggestion-engine could help. If you type "Door", then suggestions should include "interior" "wood" "metal"... based on what has been submited in the past. Having option to pick from these could make tags more coherent and help people who have trouble with english.

    One thing that could help judging quality quickly in the search results could be separate "field" with equipement used in recording/generating the sound. Most of the time it is in the description, but not always visible in the search result list (when the description is longer). It is not the only measure of quality, but chance is sound recorded with Sound devices 702 and sennheiser MKH mics is going to be very nice and "recorded with my phone" won't.
    There is possibility to search with "sound devices" string added to what you search for. It is ok, but just too narrow to include all the nagra, schoeps, neumann... etc wink

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1459 posts


    A while back I asked myself the same question. I was looking for short sound effects like bangs and booms and I noticed that the popular files were horribly distorted sounds that were of no use to me. And subsequently it took more time to search since the most popular sounds had this characteristic.

    I think that its perfectly fine for sounds to be distorted for effect, but not when they are hideously clipped when recorded or rendered, this to me is unnacceptable for use.

    Maybe people have a fetish for this, or maybe the internet is filled with laymen, i dont know.

    What I do know is that it sounds far from professional when clipped audio is put with media like a video or flash game.


    I am the thing that goes bump in the night...

    ╭─────────╮
    PLEASE VISIT
    ➤ Phazebook
    ➤ HeadCloud
    ╰─────────╯
  • avatar
    3 sounds
    2 posts


    As much as freesound has tried to distinguish itself from websites like ccmixter and others that specialize in music loops and samples, many many of its users clearly have amateur music production as their primary reason for using the site. The harp sample that apparently spawned this thread is clearly clipped intentionally, and while it does sound slightly ugly to me, the distortion is only one of many effects that have been applied...it is not presented as a clean sound, and in the context of a percussive piece of music, the clipping might sound more punchy than ugly.

    However, I think a more advanced tagging system would solve a lot of the problems that are being tossed around here. Instead of just making the user generate all tags, there should be little drop down menus - is this sound Dry or Wet? Synthesized or Recorded? Loop, one shot, ambience, etc? Equipment? Then the search feature would allow those who wish to hear only pristinely recorded harp sounds (or nasty harp sounds) the ability to filter their results.

  • avatar
    473 sounds
    127 posts


    Freesound, from what I see, is used as resource for functional sounds, for samples as a commodity. There are common sample types producers of videos, apps, or games will need: blips and bloops, explosions and weapons, nature backrounds, foley stuff. Musicians will have a need for other types, needing usable loops and drum hits mostly.

    For all the funky sound stuff we might do, unique experiments, creative endeavors, pro-level recording and sampling - put a mic in the general direction of a cymbal and ping it, and that'll be your multi-thousand downloaded sample. Or a doorbell, or car starting, etc. Boring stuff on the face of it.

    The sound quality of that harp loop is not very good. Why it is popular is that it's very workable and easy to use: it will sound allright on it's own. A non-music person can stick it in the backround of any media, while music producers could use it in songs, to support tunes already in place or to build off of to make new ones. It's simple musically and the arrangement leaves room. Finally, 120bpm is going to be a major source of any music sample's popularity, as the default in every DAW.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    HerbertBoland wrote:
    This one?
    http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=27130

    People seem to like the percussive quality of the clipping. But I agree with you. Sometimes I degrade a sound clip or loop for a project. But I like to have it presented clean. Then you have all the options open.
    So clean is better from this point of view. But in general you can't really say. I hate bitdowngrading, but it's prolific in songs nowadays as one of the many digital producer tricks.

    Hmmm, "clipping" = a loss of "information" from the original sound/file. I don't see how that can EVER be considered a "sought after quality." Not to mention the risk of damaging your nice, expensive tweeters due to the added hi freq. harmonics on the clipped file.

    "percussive elements" can be added later, if so desired. A clipped file can never be restored to its original form (unless we're talking about soft clipping) but I think we're referring to Hard Clipping in this instance, yes?

    Like yourself, I'd rather have the most accurate/complete "sample" possible.

    That said, you kinda "get what you get" with "free" samples. I mean, they ARE free! You just have to sift through the lot to get @ the good ones.

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1459 posts


    Tallowah wrote
    Hmmm, "clipping" = a loss of "information" from the original sound/file. I don't see how that can EVER be considered a "sought after quality." Not to mention the risk of damaging your nice, expensive tweeters due to the added hi freq. harmonics on the clipped file.

    "percussive elements" can be added later, if so desired. A clipped file can never be restored to its original form (unless we're talking about soft clipping) but I think we're referring to Hard Clipping in this instance, yes?

    Like yourself, I'd rather have the most accurate/complete "sample" possible.

    That said, you kinda "get what you get" with "free" samples. I mean, they ARE free! You just have to sift through the lot to get @ the good ones.

    Well said! Nail on the head for me xD


    I am the thing that goes bump in the night...

    ╭─────────╮
    PLEASE VISIT
    ➤ Phazebook
    ➤ HeadCloud
    ╰─────────╯