How to make an MP3 file smaller?

[oniman7]

My band's trying to upload a song to ReverbNation. It's roughly 4 minutes, instrumental, and only has 3 tracks. However, when we converted it to MP3 it was 35 MB. Reverbnation only allows us to upload up to 8 MB (up to 25 for mega storage) and we need to know how to compress it, yet still upload in MP3. It suggested we upload in a lower quality.

The song was recorded in Garageband on 3 tracks, uploaded to iTunes, and converted to MP3.

[Ukiah Bass]

Check your MP3 conversion setting. It was probably on 320kbps, which is near CD-quality and results in the largest size file.

192kbps is very good quality and smaller. The usual setting is 128kbps, which knocks down quality but results in a much smaller file.

[Ubersheist]

128kbps is low quality, and I'd avoid it if you can. You can hear it in the cymbols and other higher frequencies, as they get washed out and they'll sound funny. It's why a whole lot of stuff on Youtube sounds crappy - in their early days, they'd automatically convert all uploaded audio to either 96kbps or 128 (I forget which), and a whole lot of the videos with that bit rate are still up on Youtube. It sounds terrible.

I'd go at least 160, which is sorta comprable to CD quality (although not exactly - apples and oranges). Better yet is 192. Most audiofiles can't hear the difference between CD and 192, with 192 generally considered to be superior to CD quality. Again, it's comparing apples and oranges (although I am not familiar enough with the technology to know why). It's more or less the standard these days for uploading. It used to be 128 or 160, but I think people got sick of hearing 128 garbage. I know I did.

When you go to export the CD, Protools, Windows Media, or whatever file, there should be an option somewhere to choose a bit rate. There are programs out there that'll convert a 320kbps mp3 file to a more managable 192, but then you're resampling, which degrades the quality fast. It's not exactly the same, but you'll effectively end up with a file that has a bit rate of, say, 192, but effectively be the same as a 160 due to the resampling. Go to the source and re-export or re-"Save As mp3".

[Ubersheist]

Originally Posted by Ukiah Bass

Check your MP3 conversion setting. It was probably on 320kbps, which is near CD-quality and results in the largest size file.

192kbps is very good quality and smaller. The usual setting is 128kbps, which knocks down quality but results in a much smaller file.

My understanding (which is admittedly limited) is that CDs are effectively at about 160, and 320 is just a much higher rate, the highest rate that .wav files can get to. Am I mistaken?

[DWBass]

Nothing wrong with 128kbps when encoded properly with a good encoder especially for website purposes. I've fooled many an audiophile with my methods. For the purpose of website file size restraints, feel safe to use mp3's encoded at 128kbps. A site like Reverbnation is NOT a site that attracts Audiophiles to peruse.

Also, can you split the track up into individual files?

[WJGreer]

Originally Posted by DWBass

Nothing wrong with 128kbps when encoded properly with a good encoder especially for website purposes. I've fooled many an audiophile with my methods. For the purpose of website file size restraints, feel safe to use mp3's encoded at 128kbps. A site like Reverbnation is NOT a site that attracts Audiophiles to peruse.

+1. They may even re-sample anything you upload and play it back at 128kbps anyway.

[boynamedsuse]

You can also help the quality while keeping the file size low by using the VBR (variable bit rate) option if your encoder handles it.

[Duke21]

Originally Posted by Ubersheist

My understanding (which is admittedly limited) is that CDs are effectively at about 160, and 320 is just a much higher rate, the highest rate that .wav files can get to. Am I mistaken?

CD is wav file and is at 1440! But 160-224 is good for most.

[WJGreer]

Originally Posted by Duke21

CD is wav file and is at 1440! But 160-224 is good for most.

1411, actually. I believe that CDs use an uncompressed linear PCM audio format that is different from a .wav file, although a .wav file could be of equal quality.

[SurferJoe46]

I use Ogg/Vorbis as my final compression for files I want to send via e-mail if I don't feel like using my FTP.

There are also some fine-tuned forks for Ogg, most notably aoTuV, that offer better audio quality, particularly at low bitrates.

From WIKI:

Vorbis has different uses for consumer products. Many video game titles such as 18 Wheels of Steel, Halo, Unreal Tournament 2004, Unreal Tournament 3, Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven, Jets 'n' guns, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Crimsonland, Devil May Cry 3, Live For Speed and Guitar Hero: On Tour store in-game audio as Vorbis. Popular software players support Vorbis playback either natively or through an external plugin. A number of Web sites, including Wikipedia, use it.[20][21][22][23] Others include Jamendo and Mindawn, as well as several national radio stations[20] like JazzRadio, Absolute Radio, NPR, Radio New Zealand[24] and Deutschlandradio.[25] The Spotify audio streaming service uses Vorbis for its audio streams.[26]

Third party developer support of the Ogg format and Vorbis still lags far behind that of the arguably technically inferior MP3 format. A March 2011 search of all software categories on Download.com shows more than 10,700 results for the term MP3, less than 2,000 for Ogg, and less than 400 for Vorbis.

One can access the GNU/Free Ogg protocols via Audacity, as well as LAME for it's mp3 encoding at various sampling bitrates from 4KBits on up.

Ogg/Vorbis (Official Xiph.Org Foundation Vorbis) at rates of -q1 & -q2 are pretty close to mp3 @128, but with better resolution in spite of the analog pre-echo on O/V

In essence O/V is VBR anyway - Variable BitRate.

[mmbongo]

An MP3 encoded at 320kb should be around 12 megs. Still too big for your upload, but the point is something is not right with your file. What did you use to encode it?

[DWBass]

Originally Posted by SurferJoe46

I use Ogg/Vorbis as my final compression for files I want to send via e-mail if I don't feel like using my FTP.

There are also some fine-tuned forks for Ogg, most notably aoTuV, that offer better audio quality, particularly at low bitrates.

From WIKI:


One can access the GNU/Free Ogg protocols via Audacity, as well as LAME for it's mp3 encoding at various sampling bitrates from 4KBits on up.

Ogg/Vorbis (Official Xiph.Org Foundation Vorbis) at rates of -q1 & -q2 are pretty close to mp3 @128, but with better resolution in spite of the analog pre-echo on O/V

In essence O/V is VBR anyway - Variable BitRate.

I don't think Reverbnation accepts Ogg files.

[DWBass]

Originally Posted by mmbongo

An MP3 encoded at 320kb should be around 12 megs. Still too big for your upload, but the point is something is not right with your file. What did you use to encode it?

My thinking is that is was not an mp3. May have still been a wav file. I agree. A 4 minute mp3 even at 320kbps should not be 35mb in size.

[SurferJoe46]

So far I've not had anyone say they couldn't play an O/V file I sent them - whether their machines pull down a stand-alone support file or what, I cannot say.

But O/V seems to run on most OPSYS I send to - I wonder what would make Reverbnation so different?

[SurferJoe46]

I just looked:::

Can I upload file formats other than mp3 with Mega Song Storage?

No, mp3s are still the only format we accept.

Too bad - and they have a Mega limit of 25MB too.

[oniman7]

They only take MP3s, and the Mega song Storage (a $40 charge or so) increases the limit from 8 to 25. Here's the process we took:


Recorded drums
Recorded bass
Recorded guitar
Recorded multiple vocal tracks (close to 20) but then scrapped all of them and deleted all of the tracks, leaving only bass, drums, and guitar.
Then we export the song to iTunes. At this point it's an .aif file


And now I think is where we might have gone wrong. I remember laughing at the drummer's method of simply changing the file extension to MP3 by clicking the file name and re naming it. I wonder if this somehow adds extra un-converted space or something.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by oniman7

And now I think is where we might have gone wrong. I remember laughing at the drummer's method of simply changing the file extension to MP3 by clicking the file name and re naming it. I wonder if this somehow adds extra un-converted space or something.

In that case, you didn't convert it to MP3 at all. It is still an .aiff file, albeit an incorrectly named one.

[SurferJoe46]

The compression algorithms are all different and that renaming won't work.

[oniman7]

I just went with it. It seemed to go through a conversion process, and Reverbnation accepted it.

[Ubersheist]

Originally Posted by DWBass

A site like Reverbnation is NOT a site that attracts Audiophiles to peruse.

The thing about Reverb Nation is not that people visit it, but that it's apps and music players can be plugged into other websites like Facebook or a wordpress website, which get much, much higher traffic (potentially) then Reverb Nation.

The question is whether or not it's worth getting a quality recording to the average listener/web surfer or not. My thought is that it is, as I think there's an unconcious thought that most users have of "that sounds lousy for some reason" or "that recording sounds better on this website then on Youtube (or wherever)."