Soundcloud/Youtube compression as mastering technique?

[dylan reece]

I have a question that might be a little odd for this forum but here it goes. I just heard a great new 90s throwback house song through this uploaded/online service(not soundcloud) and the track sounds big and dirty in a good way, with a thick bass drum and nice crispy highs, so I downloaded it and played it on itunes through earbuds, with no equalization or weird settings, and it sounds weak and flat by comparison. Here is the song: http://new.official.fm/tracks/9oyi

So, I am just curious exactly why this is happening, obviously there is some compression going on in the player, maybe the bitrate is being downshifted and that is causing this effect, and that just happens to lend itself well to this style of music. Maybe, maybe not. I'm just not exactly sure what is happening and why, so if anyone has any insight that would be great.

I'm seriously considering running my mixes through one of these applications like soundcloud or, shit, even youtube, if it will give me this effect in my own mixes. Is it really just the same as old samplers giving things that nice crisp low bitrate sound?

[Basic A]

no. youtube compression doesnt help.

you said it all at 90's house. the tune your listening to probably only ever came out on vinyl, and you are simply listening to two different rips of it.

get on ebay, find it on wax. most older edm cant be appreciated any other way, because back then, there was no other medium.

you cant pirate shit that existed pre-mp3.

[dylan reece]

Sorry, I wasn't super clear about the song. It's not an old 90s song, it's a new tune in that style.
So I am sure the same song I downloaded is the one you can stream through the player, same file.

I listened to both under the same conditions, so it's the difference between listening through iTunes or through a hosting service. Also it's a new tune that isn't a vinyl rip, so we don't have that variable to complicate things.

I have just noticed that contrary to logic, often, for whatever reasons, youtube/soundcloud/whatever effects the sound in a nice way, making things punchy and rounding out the low end nicely.

I just want to understand exactly how files are altered when being uploaded to these sites, so I can replicate the effect in the studio if need be.

[deadly_habit]

128kbps mp3 compression
there's nothing magically or good sounding about it

[dubesteppe]

record the online version from your sound card and you could try inverting the phase to see how they cancel out(youd have to get the volume on the recorded one just right)

[dylan reece]

I know it sounds dumb/illogical at first, but I have ears and something is going on besides a lowering of bitrate. It could be a simple as itunes not providing a transparent playback, or that itunes is not as transparent as most people would think,especially in the low end, but the sound is definitely different and I want to understand why.

@dubesteppe That is a great idea. I'm going to try that. Thanks.

[narcissus]

i dunno if it's just me... but i've noticed sometimes when i hear an mp3 version of something, that isn't that amazing of quality, i tend to try to hear through it if i like the song enough, and if that's the first version of a song i get used to, then that is the way i get used to hearing it.. and sometimes a certain element will obscure another, so that i can't EXACTLY hear what's going on in one part of the mix... it is clouded so my brain 'makes up' what is there and it ends up sounding to my tastes.
if i end up hearing a better quality version of the song at some point, sometimes i am surprised by what is actually there, it may be underwhelming, and the magic that my minded created there is gone.
think perhaps something akin to this psychological effect is happening here.

[nowaysj]

Old school 128k mp3 compression kind of sounds good to me. Hashy soft high end. Just like vinyl isn't totally hifi...

[hurlingdervish]

Old school 128k mp3 compression kind of sounds good to me. Hashy soft high end. Just like vinyl isn't totally hifi...

I guess thats fair

I'm sure there were people laughing at people not moving to CD's in the 80's.

That said, I still don't like 128k mp3s. I just wouldn't be surprised if it was trendy in 10 years.

[nowaysj]

I'm sure there were people laughing at people not moving to CD's in the 80's.

More than people, everyone was laughing at the luddites. Still are.

Whatevers, you know, sound is sound, constantly hearing a type of sound for a while kind of habituates you to that sound, and it is what you sort of expect, anticipate, want. Have you ever taken a sip of a drink but it wasn't what you thought it would be, there is this jarring moment where it kind of tastes like shit. It might actually taste good, but your anticipation is for something else entirely.

Now I don't know if I'm referring to 128k continuous bit rate or what, cause I can't stand youtube/soundcloud sound, but I have a squadron of old mp3's that sound good at low bitrates.

Probably will be trendy. Get a plug in with antique mp3 encoding algo's as a form of distortion.

[wub]

Now I don't know if I'm referring to 128k continuous bit rate or what, cause I can't stand youtube/soundcloud sound, but I have a squadron of old mp3's that sound good at low bitrates.

This - my copy of Camisra - Let Me Show You sounds fucking mint at the lower bit rates for some reason.

Probably will be trendy. Get a plug in with antique mp3 encoding algo's as a form of distortion.

This will probably happen though.

[Artie_Fufkin]

I've been surprised by some of 128kbps stuff I've exported out of audacity. I'm using the lame 3.97 encoder and it seems to do pretty well even when compared to the original wav ripped from a cd.