Re: Including many sound files

Hi Roy, Welcome to the NOF newsgroups.

WAV files are awfully big for the web.  A much better method is to convert
your sound files to them to MP3s.  Then deploy a player on your site like
this one from Wimpy. It's a snap to add more mp3s later.

http://www.wimpyplayer.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=836



--Nancy O.
Alt-Web Design & Publishing
www.alt-web.com



"Roy Butterfield" <roy.nospambutterfield@talktalk.net> wrote in
message
news:fs8ote$q365@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com...
> Hi everyone. I'm new to Fusion 9. I'm trying to create a small site to
> promote my wife's original recordings. I'd like to put about a couple of
> dozen links on the site which will each play a short track when clicked.
> I've experimented with the sound tool. This puts up a tiny player bar and
> seems okay for a single file, and works with one of my WAV files. But if I
> draw two or more onto the page, clicking various ones results in them all
> playing!
> I'm also very aware that my WAV files are pretty big. Is there a much
better
> way I can attempt this?
> Thanks for any help.
> Roy B
>
>

Of course a trained ear can tell the difference.  You don't even need a
trained ear to notice the difference.  That's not the point. The web isn't
about hi fidelity.  It's about bandwidth and how long some guy/gal with
dial-up is willing to wait to hear a few soundbytes.  It's best to
downsample music files for the widest possible audience.  Play them back and
if they don't sound horrendous, upload 'em.

BTW: I highly recommend Audacity for recording and digitizing sound files.
http://www.how-to-podcast-tutorial.com/15-audacity-download.htm


--Nancy O.
Alt-Web Design & Publishing
www.alt-web.com







"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0fo2u788nknc004@news.netobjects.com...
> On 24/03/2008 in message
<fs8ote$q365@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com> Roy
> Butterfield wrote:
>
> >I'm also very aware that my WAV files are pretty big. Is there a much
> >better way I can attempt this?
>
> As Nancy said MP3's are much smaller. It may be worth converting a couple
> of wav files and letting your wife listen to them though. I did that for
> my music teacher and she could tell the difference immediately, trained
> ear :-)
>
> -- 
> Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
> This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

Hi everyone. I'm new to Fusion 9. I'm trying to create a small site to 
promote my wife's original recordings. I'd like to put about a couple of 
dozen links on the site which will each play a short track when clicked. 
I've experimented with the sound tool. This puts up a tiny player bar and 
seems okay for a single file, and works with one of my WAV files. But if I 
draw two or more onto the page, clicking various ones results in them all 
playing!
I'm also very aware that my WAV files are pretty big. Is there a much better 
way I can attempt this?
Thanks for any help.
Roy B 

It's a web developer's role to educate people (particularly artists) about
the limits/benefits of web media.  Example: Youtube is highly successful,
gets tons of hits each day and yet the video quality on 80% of the content
is sub-mediocre.  I won't even talk about the sound.  It's awful.  Much of
it is captured on low-tech cell phones!!  Seasoned web users including A&R
industry people don't expect high def on the web.  What people expect on the
web today is fast delivery and reasonable "web-quality."  That's not
appealing to the lowest common denominator.  It's just how the web works.

If you're a serious musician trying to find representation or a record
label, chances are you are mailing out demo CD's anyway and not relying much
on the web to demonstrate your talent, except perhaps to gain an "American
Idol" type following.  If an A&R person hears something they like,
they
usually insist on seeing the performer at a live concert.  At least that's
how it works here in California.


--Nancy O.
Alt-Web Design & Publishing
www.alt-web.com





"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0fo38ciaost8000@news.netobjects.com...
> On 25/03/2008 in message <fs9efp$c2@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com>
Nancy
> O wrote:
>
> >Of course a trained ear can tell the difference.  You don't even need
a
> >trained ear to notice the difference.  That's not the point. The web
isn't
> >about hi fidelity.  It's about bandwidth and how long some guy/gal
with
> >dial-up is willing to wait to hear a few soundbytes.  It's best to
> >downsample music files for the widest possible audience.  Play them
back
> >and
> >if they don't sound horrendous, upload 'em.
>
> I can't tell the difference, perhaps as my lessons advance?
>
> The issue though is if the intention is to provide samples of an artiste's
> work and they sound bad then it may hinder the artiste's progress. I'm
> still thinking about it for my teacher but she won't allow poor sounding
> work to be up-loaded. Short wav samples with an offer to request a CD is a
> possibility. It's important to come up with an acceptable solution, not
> just to reduce the quality to the lowest common denominator.
>
> -- 
> Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
> By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends

On 24/03/2008 in message <fs8ote$q365@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com> Roy

Butterfield wrote:

>I'm also very aware that my WAV files are pretty big. Is there a much 
>better way I can attempt this?

As Nancy said MP3's are much smaller. It may be worth converting a couple 
of wav files and letting your wife listen to them though. I did that for 
my music teacher and she could tell the difference immediately, trained 
ear :-)

-- 
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK