Forums

  • avatar
    48 sounds
    66 posts

    ah ok makes sense now tongue thanks i will

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    3081 - Sadist

    Don't hate yourself for exerting human nature wink

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    You're absolutely right, it does depend on the precise sonic make-up of that audio file.

    When you compress an audio file and reduce it's sample rate, you will get "artefacts" or aliasing, the severity of which may vary depending on the frequencies that are predominant in the wave; this has something to do with the 'Nyquist theorem'.

    Bass heavy audio tend to generate more prominent artefacts because the wave generally has the greatest amplitude of all frequency content, therefore the aliasing is more distinguishable. These bass artefacts are characterised by 'squeaking', which is the only way I can describe it.

    I do urge you to read more into aliasing and the Nyquist theorem because it's a fascinating subject; at least I think so grin

  • avatar
    13 sounds
    236 posts

    3080 - butt-plug

    (Hmmmph... tomorrow I'm going to hate myself for responding along this line of thinking!)

  • avatar
    48 sounds
    66 posts

    Headphaze wrote:
    Ok well it is like that for a reason.

    Personally, if the original upload quality is decent, then degradation is minimal, and usually unnoticeable to untrained ears.

    If you have used google image search you will see that when previewing an image in isolation it goes through 2 loading phases - one with a very low resolution and then the higher resolution afterwards. This can be viewed as the same principle, where brevity is considered when users are previewing many files in quick succession whose bandwidth is perhaps not good enough for the task. If it's lacking then it becomes a major grind for the user.

    Ultimately, it's not about data storage and more about allowing a more fluid and streamlined search ability.

    The thing about Soundcloud, it serves a different purpose. It's less about cycling through many sounds in one session, and more about listening to individual music tracks - the files are processed on their server for preview quality, but with less noticeable destruction. Therefore, having a massively reduced file-size is less important, because it's unnecessary.

    With all that said, I actually do agree somewhat that the reduction in sound resolution could be less than in previous years, as domestic bandwidth has increased generally.

    I understand what you're getting at, I think it depends on what kind of sound you upload, I notice too that some of my sounds are pretty unnoticeable in sound quality and some are very noticeable, all are the same quality (technically speaking) , i think the less bassy the sound is the less noticeable it will be, or something that has to do with how the compression works, since im not an expert in this area im not exactly sure

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    That's cool

    But, I have one query:

    Aren't they going to be a bit tight on the shock-mount. Surely the vibrations will propagate easily through tight rubber bands?

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    Ok well it is like that for a reason.

    Personally, if the original upload quality is decent, then degradation is minimal, and usually unnoticeable to untrained ears.

    If you have used google image search you will see that when previewing an image in isolation it goes through 2 loading phases - one with a very low resolution and then the higher resolution afterwards. This can be viewed as the same principle, where brevity is considered when users are previewing many files in quick succession whose bandwidth is perhaps not good enough for the task. If it's lacking then it becomes a major grind for the user.

    Ultimately, it's not about data storage and more about allowing a more fluid and streamlined search ability.

    The thing about Soundcloud, it serves a different purpose. It's less about cycling through many sounds in one session, and more about listening to individual music tracks - the files are processed on their server for preview quality, but with less noticeable destruction. Therefore, having a massively reduced file-size is less important, because it's unnecessary.

    With all that said, I actually do agree somewhat that the reduction in sound resolution could be less than in previous years, as domestic bandwidth has increased generally.

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    Personally I've never had any trouble downloading from the Freesound servers before in many years.

    However, I have heard other people complaining before from time to time, but it's occasional enough to say it's not a well established issue.

    usually the users have also run speed tests to determine that it is not their bandwidth that's the problem. Sadly, I cannot give an answer as to why this happens; although I wish I could be of more use.


  • avatar
    48 sounds
    66 posts

    Headphaze wrote:
    So are you talking specifically about the preview quality, or are you also talking about sound quality in general for users' uploads?

    im only talking about the preview quality

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    So are you talking specifically about the preview quality, or are you also talking about sound quality in general for users' uploads?

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    Those bastards

    Somehow they are getting through the spam filter. Just after the crap gets deleted, they post more under a new alias.

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    3079 - Fist

    smile

  • avatar
    102 sounds
    702 posts

    3078 - finger

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    2077 - One

  • avatar
    102 sounds
    702 posts

    3076 - function

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    3075 - Curve

  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1566 posts

    I flagged directly to admin and they are dealing with it as we speak.

  • avatar
    1 sound
    42 posts

    afleetingspeck wrote:
    No, to "Yeah, I guess".

    Why?

  • avatar
    13 sounds
    236 posts

    I don't think every spam post needs to be reported. If a few are reported for each spammer username, all of the spammers posts and the spammers profile are deleted in one go. All it takes is a few vigilant freesounders to click the report links, and all of us to have a little patience and it's sorted. I personally have no problem recognising genuine posts from spam, and indeed, feel I am usefully contributing to the community by taking a minute to click a few spam reports.

    Irritation is best overcome by karma. This works for legitimate but heavy self-promoting posters who I'm not interested in as well as for spammers.

    Wibby.

  • avatar
    102 sounds
    702 posts

    3074 - Automaton