Uploading Wav Files to Soundcloud Vs Mp3

While some streaming services like Amazon Music Hd and Tidal are now offering lossless audio, many others like Spotify, Apple Music, and SoundCloud still use lossy sound compression techniques to deliver music. Of those, SoundCloud has always been unique in how easy it makes instant uploads for creators.

Perhaps information technology's due to that very ease that questions like, "Why does my music sound different on SoundCloud?" or "What tin can I practice to brand my music audio ameliorate on SoundCloud?" seem to come upward more oftentimes than they practise for other streaming services.

Despite SoundCloud introducing a new "mastering" characteristic to optimize streaming playback, knowing what actually happens to your audio during streaming and mastering is key to understanding how to produce a track with the highest possible sound quality for streaming. So let'southward take a look at why those sonic changes occur, and what we can do to minimize them.

In this slice you lot'll learn:

• How to optimize your songs for streaming on SoundCloud and other compressed audio formats

• What you can and tin't control in the process

The bottom line

To go to the lesser of this, I prepared twoscore masters of a unmarried vocal—xx at 44.1 kHz and 20 at 48 kHz—and uploaded them all to SoundCloud. For each sample rate, I methodically varied the parameters of tiptop level, crest cistron, frequency-specific width, and total width. I then played them all back off SoundCloud, recording the output bitstream pre-conversion—again at 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz—for assay and comparing confronting the originals. This yielded a whopping 80 versions of the song!

• 20 uploaded and recorded at 44.1 kHz

• twenty uploaded at 48 kHz and recorded at 44.1 kHz

• 20 uploaded at 44.one kHz and recorded at 48 kHz

• xx uploaded and recorded at 48 kHz

Testing xl versions of a song

Afterwards level matching them all for a fair comparing, I got to piece of work listening and measuring to determine which factors played the biggest role in preserving—or degrading—audio quality during format conversion and streaming playback. At the end of the day the parameter which made the biggest impact was: width! Not but that, but all the other variables had little to no impact (caveats ahead).

To understand why this is, how you can potentially take advantage of information technology, and why you lot might non want to worry most information technology at all, read on!

Manipulating width for a "better" encode

I should qualify what I mean by "meliorate." Really, what we're talking nigh is an encode which is perceptually closer to the source. However, the steps we're taking to get at that place involve making some sacrifices to the source. Then while the encode and the source may audio more alike, the cumulative difference between the encode, the source, and what you were originally trying to reach may all the same be fairly noticeable.

That qualifier aside, here are a few things you can do to minimize the differences between the source and the encode:

Narrow the loftier-finish

Using a tool like the Imager in Ozone 9, try narrowing frequencies higher up about eight kHz. I can't give you a precise amount, as information technology will very much depend on the amount of width that you had in that range to begin with. Try soloing that band and reducing the width until it occupies nigh half of the stereo field between your speakers. This will assist reduce some of the high-frequency washiness that is so common with low-bitrate lossy codecs.

Narrow mid and depression frequencies

If you want, and your principal tin handle it, try narrowing the mid and low bands every bit well. Try setting the mid band to about 1–8 kHz, and the low band below i kHz. You could fifty-fifty split up this into two ranges: 400–g Hz and below 400 Hz. You'll likely want to go out the mid—and low-mid if you're using information technology—bands fairly close to their original width, yet, you may be able to get away with narrowing lower frequencies a scrap more. Whatever little bit helps.

Employ a mono master

This is absolutely an extreme solution, simply if you can justify it, a mono source will give you the "best" encode—again, meaning perceptually closest to the source, albeit now in mono. This is considering you lot're essentially request the encoder to exercise half equally much work by encoding a single channel. In turn, this means the encoder can allocate it'due south entire bandwidth to that ane channel, rather than having to dissever information technology between two channels.

The reasons width plays such a critical role in encoder operation are hugely complex, but tin be summarized as follows: most lossy encoders like AAC, MP3, and Opus employ a technique known as articulation stereo encoding. This means that rather than encoding both left and right channels independently, they employ multiple techniques such equally mid/side and intensity-stereo coding to optimize bandwidth allotment to where it will exist most noticeable—oftentimes the eye of the stereo image.

The stop result is that ultra-wide stereo signals often suffer from quality degradation more noticeably than do narrower ones. Additionally, loftier frequencies require more bandwidth to encode. Thus, by reducing the width of high frequencies, not only do you gratuitous up some bandwidth for the encoder, assuasive information technology to allocate its bits more efficiently, merely you too prevent some of the more noticeable, warbly, washy distortion from showing upwards in the encode.

A keen fashion to experiment with the effects of these changes in real-time is by using the Codec Preview in Ozone 9 Avant-garde. Try using MP3 at 128 kbps or AAC at 256 kbps—two of the mutual codecs used by SoundCloud depending on the playback platform and subscription level—and tweaking Imager parameters. You lot can even use the "Solo Artifacts" function to hear how changes in width affect the underlying distortion added by the codec.

Codec Preview in Ozone 9

All the other bits

I would exist remiss if I didn't address things similar elevation level, crest-gene, and file format for upload, so let's talk near those at least a footling.

In all my recent tests, height level did not have a noticeable impact on encoder performance—at to the lowest degree not directly. By this, I mean that and so long as there wasn't any clipping, the encoder performance between versions with dissimilar amounts of peak headroom was identical.

However, because lower bitrates—such equally those often used past SoundCloud—tin can cause peak level overshoot of a decibel or more, it's good practice to fix the ceiling of your limiter to -one or -i.five dB and employ a Truthful Peak limiter such every bit the Ozone Maximizer. This helps prevent clipping on playback, especially through cheaper consumer devices.

The story with crest cistron is largely the aforementioned. While it doesn't have a direct, dramatic impact on encoder performance, a lower crest factor will often result in higher top level overshoot—something which ultimately often results in DAC clipping and distortion. This has the slightly ironic result of requiring additional superlative headroom—or a lower limiter ceiling—the higher you push your average level, something which tin quickly turn into a losing battle.

This is another area where Codec Preview in Ozone 9 Advanced can be enormously helpful. By turning on Detect "True Peaks" in the I/O options and listening through the MP3 128 kbps codec, you tin can fine-tune the Maximizer threshold and ceiling to achieve an optimal level while fugitive post encode clipping.

Checking post-encode peak headroom in Ozone 9

As for upload format, the official recommendation from SoundCloud is a 16-flake, 48 kHz WAV file. This reason for this is that of the several codecs used, the majority of them are set up to take in a 48 kHz file, so this minimizes the corporeality of sample charge per unit conversion that will take place.

That said, sample rate conversion has become extremely transparent, and in my tests neither the upload nor playback sample rates had an appreciable effect on encoder performance or playback quality.

The ane caveat hither is that if y'all enable downloads on SoundCloud, the file you upload is the 1 your fans go when they download. Thus, if you lot desire them to receive a 320kbps MP3, that's what you'll need to upload. However, this results in transcoding from one lossy format to another, which never sounds particularly proficient.

In short, if you want the best streaming quality possible, upload a 16-bit WAV at 44.i or 48 kHz. If, on the other hand, you want to enable downloads, upload the file you want your fans to receive, merely know that if it's a lossy file, streaming quality will suffer. Since these days downloading a local copy is probably not every bit common as it one time was, this may be a moot point.

Decision

To wrap up I want to consider a few reasons why mayhap y'all shouldn't worry likewise much about all the factors we've just discussed.

First and foremost, SoundCloud may well update the codecs they use in the future just every bit they have in the past. When that happens they will re-encode all uploaded music to accept advantage of the new codec(due south). It'due south for this very reason that they themselves urge creators not to try to optimize files besides much for a specific codec.

Second, while you lot tin command the width, sample rate, etc. of the file you upload, you tin can't control how your fans will heed to information technology. Of form, this is truthful of the vast majority of playback mediums. It bears repeating here though because even on SoundCloud alone, the playback feel can vary depending on subscription level and playback device. Consider carefully whether information technology'south worth sacrificing some of the width and spaciousness of your track merely for the lowest mutual denominator.

Hopefully, this has armed you lot not only with some of the tools to improve encoder performance when uploading to SoundCloud but also the wisdom to know when, when not, and how strongly to wield them. Good luck, and happy mastering!

smithwittife.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/mastering-for-compressed-audio-formats.html

Share this post