What file size and type?

Aug 24, 2008

So you’re putting your music online. You’re going to make it available to people, and now you have to make a decision about what file format you’re going to use, what encoding rate, and what sort of file size you’re going to subject your customer’s bandwidth to.

There are two answers to this question. The first is the ‘it depends’ answer. You can do a whole lot of calculations about your own bandwidth and budget, expected download popularity, server space, etc. You can make allowances for all the different online retailers and the file types they use.

The second answer is really simple and it applies when you’re selling your music from your site. It doesn’t depend. And while I’m buying myself another argument here – I’m going to say that right now, I reckon this is the best answer for online music file types.

It has to be mp3
I understand the arguments in favour of Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Monkeys Audio, AAC and, of course, full WAV files. I’ve done the comparison listening tests, and yes – they all do sound better than mp3. And it doesn’t matter that they do.

Mp3 files win on two fronts: file size and interoperability. They are significantly smaller than WAV and FLAC files, and they can be played on any computer-mediated music playback system you care to mention. They can be moved from machine to machine and they just work. They are convenient.

They don’t win on sound quality, but in the trade off between convenience and quality, they’re down the heavy end of the see-saw.

What size mp3?
In my mind, there’s no question: 320kbps. You’re already dealing with something that’s a mere fraction of the audio data. No need to cut any further corners. What’s more, in most listening situations, most people can’t tell the difference between an mp3 at 320kbps and a CD.

We’re talking headphones on the bus, living room with the windows open, kitchen benchtop player – that sort of thing.

I may be getting into that age bracket where my top end hearing starts to desert me, but I’m pretty good up to around 17-18k, and I’m a former sound engineer and record producer with jazz leanings – and I struggle to tell the difference in anything much less than studio referencing monitors.

Delivery system
Make the individual tracks available by all means, but use ZIP files to gather the music together with the artwork and liner notes, and let people download everything they need with one click. People don’t want to have to click a dozen times and then assemble the album themselves.

And for god’s sake – make sure your mp3s are tagged properly. Track names, track numbers, artist name, album name, embedded artwork – correct capitalisation. Don’t make work for your customers.

Not only but also
Having said that 320k mp3 is the way forward, let me just say that you can earn extra brownie points by allowing your customers to choose other, more audiophile-friendly formats.

I recently purchased the new David Byrne & Brian Eno collaboration, and was impressed to note that not only did it come as a zip file with 320k mp3s, a PDF booklet and all the artwork you could eat – it was also available as FLAC files.

They had a nice little disclaimer. Something along the lines of: FLAC files are for advanced users, and they require extra software, but they sound really good. It was a good idea, and a tip of the hat to the few users who are ahead of the curve on the fidelity front. For me, though, it’s 320k mp3s all the way.

I’d be really keen to hear your take on it though…

Table of contents for Questions

Previous Next

19 Comments. Write a comment or link to this post

Ross Bennett

My take is that you nailed it, though I was a bit surprised at your suggestion for 320 kbps bit rates. I’ve been running 256, but given what you’ve said, I think I’ll kick it up to 320.

Glad you mentioned the Byrne/Eno distribution formats. That’s a classy way to do things. Good solid stuff for the mainstream user, and going the extra mile for the more particular among us. Best of all, their excellent short explanation of the difference may encourage loads of folks to give something new a try.

Some folks say the first step in changing is admitting you have a problems. I’d counter that with technology, sometimes the first step is learning that other options even exist.

Aug 24th, 2008
Marco Raaphorst

One of the most important things to make MP3 sound good: make sure the mastering level is on -1 db, more or less. This prevents the MP3 to clip.

Ogg is being supported by W3C and Firefox. So that’s another thing we can focus on. We can change the world, so we should do it. Ogg is way better than MP3. And we musicians should do something about it. A little energy is needed for change. Let’s do that. Support both MP3 en Ogg!

Aug 24th, 2008
gurdonark

Great post.

I agree that every site should have high-quality mp3s. The addition of other formats is also a good thing. As an aside, I personally will switch to OGG when my favored brand of mp3 player uses OGG.

It’s not a “file format” thing per se, but I think that the music should be placed in the context of “song pages”, as suggested by Lucas Gonze.
Kristin Hersh’s cash music project uses weblog posts to provide context for the song–make the song less about “product” and more about “connection”.

Aug 24th, 2008
Marco Raaphorst

@Gurdonark: yes, Gonze’s idea is the same thing I am doing for KlankBeeld Raaphorst http://www.marcoraaphorst.nl/tags/klankbeeld/

A song should be a blogpost/page (for most blogsoftware, a blogpost is always also a page). And it should be uploaded when ready. Stop the waiting game…

At least a song each week.

Aug 24th, 2008
audiot

My take on it?

Amen.

Plain and simple.

Aug 24th, 2008
Kevin M

I’m in the process of setting up an online music store and I can tell you that these requirements may not be practical if you are selling more than 100 albums.

I’ve settled for an average 256 kbps using variable bit rates per track to keep the file sizes to less than 10 Mb.

Excellent post I might add.

Aug 24th, 2008
tj milian

Totally agree. I cringe when I download anything less than 320k. Can’t wait for a successor to the mp3 that is lossless, offers higher bit/sample rates rates than CD and surround capability and also has all the advantages of mp3 [aside from file size]: standardized metadata, lyrics, artwork, CDDB track names… Backward compatibility would be great.

Why doesn’t FLAC have most of these benefits? How about a program that crawls the web to find the FLAC lossless audio of an album and then marries it to the mp3 metadata and converts it to this new fully-featured format? Of course, it’s got to be playable on an ipod. Now I’m just dreaming…

Aug 24th, 2008
Marco Raaphorst

oh FLAC is best without question. and I blame Apple for not supporting it. really childish.

Aug 24th, 2008
mono

I’m actually genuinely surprised at the support of only releasing as 320kbps files. For everyday purposes, there’s still nothing wrong with 192 files… Most people don’t have the trained ear to differentiate between the quality levels which are, if we’re being realistic for once, barely noticeable unless in direct comparison, played through decent monitors, or heard by people like us who work with music for a living.

I’ve got absolutely nothing against using the higher quality files, but if you’re going to bother releasing it online in a lossy format in the first place, at least give the option for a lower rate like 192 for those who don’t care about a percieved quality difference for double the file space.

Aug 24th, 2008
scottandrew

I’m not sure what 320k brings to the table as a value-add. We’re talking about file sizes that can exceed 10MB for a 4-minute song. There’s certainly a point of diminishing returns and I think that point is 256k VBR.

Consider also that two of the most popular digital stores, iTunes and Amazon MP3, offer their downloads at a baseline of 128k and 256k, respectively. Amazon’s files are also variable bit rate.

I offered MP3, Ogg and FLAC files on my website for a few years. In that time, I sold no Ogg and only a handful of FLAC. I eventually dropped Ogg because the cost to host and maintain those files exceeded the income they generated.

And in the end, faced with purchasing from my own store vs. a known venue like iTunes, most of my customers opt for the latter anyway.

Aug 24th, 2008
fakedjs

This is my pet-peeve, my data must be perfect when I buy – don’t make me have to reedit: “And for god’s sake – make sure your mp3s are tagged properly. Track names, track numbers, artist name, album name, embedded artwork – correct capitalisation. Don’t make work for your customers.”

Aug 24th, 2008
Seamus Anthony

Hey thanks for that. I am a bit old school still so that helped me answer some questions I had as I prepare to release some tunes. Jeez, things are more complicated than 10 years ago I tells ya

Aug 25th, 2008
Leary

Kia ora Andrew,

Great post. Cheers.

320k is more than ample I reckon. *Most* people really dont notice the difference even between 128k files and a cd. Of course a bunch of us do, and people that listen to drum n bass and the like certainly do. Depending on the complexity and frequency range of the music, most people really dont notice.

I agree on your point about offering a high quality FLAC or similar. Theres audiophiles everywhere, but most people dont know what it is. Good to offer though, cos the people that only want the lossless quality, are *probably* the people that also talk about your music online.

and word up to the tags, you dont make people guess the names of your tracks on a cd do you.

Cheers
Leary

Aug 26th, 2008
I Have Clones

I upload all my work at 192Kbps and I’ve never had any complaints, however I’m aware that my listeners aren’t necessarily the audio gurus that some people can be!

One issue to consider though is that if all my music were encoded at 320Kbps I’d only fit half as much on my ipod and therefore I’d be reluctant to put it on.

For instance this morning I had to delete two albums from the ipod in order to make way for a 320kbps one.

I know I could reconvert it etc etc. – but it’s all hassle and for my listeners at least there really is no point exceeding 192Kbps – it’s quick to download and doesn’t take up too much disk space.

The ZIP file point is very good – I always do this – although believe it or not some people do need educated as to what it is!

Aug 26th, 2008
Andrew Potterton

320 Mp3s all the way. And full fat, uncompresssed WAVs, of course. WAVs are prefered by digital DJs playing on big systems, as MP3s, even at 320 sound weak compared to uncompressed audio data. Thats why stores like http://www.beatport.com sell them, and at a higher price. So master to WAV as well I say. The comments about the metadata is totally crucial, I personally add notes about copyright info, my contact email address, website etc. and save this data with the files. “Track 1″ is just not good enough data. How many of these do we all have floating around on our computers?
You people talking about lower than 320 MP3s, yuck. I do not want to listen to anything lower than 320k on MP3. At all, ever.
And don’t get me started about DRM…

Aug 26th, 2008
Leary

I can certainly understand WAVs for DJs. If i was buying something I wanted to play out, on a big system, Id definitely want a WAV. No less. Your average punter though, can probably cope with 192. surely.

perhaps theres some marketing scope for ‘pro’ versions of songs for sale to professionals. as you say, some people already do it..

mmm serato…

Peace
Leary

Aug 26th, 2008
Stu Venable

While I agree with your advice that all distributions should include .mp3s at a high sample rate, you’ve sort of stumbled onto my pet peeve when you talked about 320kps as the only acceptable resolution.

Firstly, for the convenience of the buyer, higher and lower bitrate files should be included. Not everyone has an iPod with a enormous hard drive. Including (yes, I know yuck) 128kps .mp3s would be appreciated by those fans with small-capacity mp3 devices. It would only be an extra 20 minutes of work, and would save fans the trouble of doing it themselves (if they even bothered to do it — we want people to not just buy our music, but to listen to it, a lot).

Secondly, I constantly find people telling me that I have “bad ears” if I can’t hear the difference between a high-resolution mp3 and a .wav file. It’s the same with people who insist I should record at 96kHz as opposed to 44.1kHz. I can’t hear the difference. “Well, you probably have hearing damage,” they reply. I never believed that, and in the April 2008 issue of Mix magazine, I finally got some backup that my hearing may not be the problem.

The article, entitled “The Emperor’s New Sampling Rate,” describes a study in last September’s Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. It compared high-resolution audio formats (SACDs and DVD-As) with ordinary 44.1kHz, 16-bit CDs. I’ll excerpt one paragraph that nicely summarizes the results (hopefully, this is fair use…):

“The number of times out of 554 that the listeners correctly identified which system was playing was 276, or 49.82 percent – exactly the same thing that would have happened if they had based their responses on flipping a coin. Audiophiles and working engineers did slightly better, or 52.7-percent correct, while those who could hear above 15kHz actually did worse, or 45.3 percent.”

The author describes the method of the study (double-blind, with meticulous attention to the signal paths, subject selection — audio engineers, nonprofessional audiophiles, audio engineering students, etc.).

Admittedly, this is a study between a very good format and a very, very good format, but I have to wonder, if faced with a well-designed, double-blinded study, how discernible is a 320 mp3 from a wav file? Or a 256 from a 320 mp3?

Certainly, a 128 mp3 vs. wav is pretty easy to hear, even my “bad ears” can hear the difference, at least if the material in question has any cymbal hits or other high-frequency instruments.

Much of the audio-recording media is about how to squeeze a little more sonic quality out of your gear — buy that $900 preamp, rather than the $200 preamp you’ve been struggling with, forget those 300-dollar mics, you need a 1200-dollar Neumann.

I wonder how much time and money is wasted trying to improve the signal chain, when the time could have been put to better use honing ones songwriting or practicing ones instrument. Maybe spending the money on a 2000-dollar mic/preamp combination could be better spent on instrument lessons from a really good music instructor.

Like many independent musicians, I’m now recording my own material, and it’s very easy to get caught up in “gear lust.” But I have to say, I’d rather listen to a 96kps mp3 of a really compelling song — the kind of song that can bring tears to my eyes, or makes me want to sing along at the top of my lungs — than a mediocre song in a high-resolution format.

The confluence of “recording engineer” and “recording artist” has been a wonderful, empowering thing, but I think there’s a danger of losing the art. We should be mindful of it. After all, it’s all about the music, or should be.

Aug 27th, 2008
Atul Rana

All our stuff is in 128k as most people can’t tell the difference between that and CD. Having said that I myself now think 192k is better to aim for as the gain in quality is signficant.

Aug 30th, 2008