re rendering specs

[haven42]

Hello,

I am currently uploading music to “Pond 5” (online library) and have some questions regarding tech specs/rendering. Here is a copy/paste of an email I just sent to their customer service, but I would love feedback on this issue from anyone here regarding either pond 5 or even regarding other online libraries (audiosparx, etc):

I have a question for you regarding “technical information”. Most of my music over the last 10 years or so I have rendered at 44.100, 16 bit wav files, however, before uploading I have been converting through editing software to 4800/24 bit… however…when I upload it and then look at the technical information tab they still show as 44.100/16bit – I am guessing the only way for me to have them show up as 4800/24 bit is if I render them directly from my original DAW projects – which I can do, but of course it is a lot of work for me to pull those up and re-render. My question is with regards to how that historically effects sales on Pond 5. If it really makes a difference then I will start re-rendering files, but if it does not make that big a difference, then I wont as I think I can upload over 1000 new songs in the next couple of months if I don’t have to re-render. If I have to re-render I am guessing it will take me probably the better part of the year to get them uploaded. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you so much!

[GaryW]

I have all of my tracks at Pond 5 as mp3’s @ 256kbps. Over 300 tracks. Never had any problems, and they are on of my best selling libraries. Had some problems when I first went on there uploading at 16/44 wave files, so I went to mp3.

[Wildman]

First I uploaded my tracks at 24/44.1 but after a while I went back to standard 16/44.1 Funny, I was asked  Pond5 nearly the same question as haven42. They are nice at the support but I don`t think that they really care in which format you`ll send your tracks.

@GaryW: it`s very interesting that you just upload mp3 files. It`s faster. I always have the feeling I have to give the customer one good uncompressed wav file but maybe I am wrong and times changed and a 320kbit mp3 file is enough for the stock market. I don`t really know…:-)

[Art Munson]

before uploading I have been converting through editing software to 4800/24 bit

You are not achieving anything except increasing your file size. It will not increase the sonic quality. If I’m wrong someone will quickly correct me! 🙂

[MichaelL]

I have to agree with Art. I’m not sure what the point of 48/24 would be. When dealing directly with editors for TV shows, I deliver 48/16.

I can understand recording and mixing at high sample and bit rates and then reducing.

Can’t believe people are actually using mp3’s in a professional context.

[haven42]

Thanx you guys for the feedback – I am surprised to hear of uploading mp3s – I would think the customers would at the very least want a wav file – but I guess that is good news. I myself am one of those that can not hear any difference between 4800 and 44.1 or 24bit and 16 bit. I have seen folks go in every direction on this topic but I appreciate the responses from you guys with regards to production music and online libraries specifically – and I welcome any more feedback on the topic. I am thinking 44.1/16 should be adequate?

@Art – I agree that converting “upwards” through editing software is not going to actually change the quality – you just cant “improve” upon what has already been rendered – but I guess I was doing that cuz it may change in “perception” LOL

on that note (and I don’t know if this is factual), I had a buddy once tell me that Beethoven had a musical symbol he used for “bending a note” on the piano – when asked “how do you do that” he responded “with your mind” and furthermore “if you do it with conviction, the audience will hear it that way” – again, I don’t know if any of this is factual, but it certainly appeals to me – for all this talk of specs, I have always thought music either sounds good or it doesn’t. – thanx again!

[Author]

Posts