brianp wrote: hoi.polloi wrote:
brianp, thanks for trying to post your research in detail. May I recommend you take a quick read through our "Required" threads to see what has already been written about posting various media formats? http://cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=32
Also, I recommend slapping together a YouTube, Vimeo or other video that draws the comparison for readers in a straightforward way. However, I certainly appreciate your level of detail in citation, and everyone should be comfortable in making note of your points and checking them out. Thanks for that. I think you are onto something, and if so, good ear!
I've been browsing the "Required" forum and punching some keywords "format" "formats" "media" "mp3" etc. and trying to find a particular set guideline. Seen one for embedding videos. Could you nudge me in a better directon? I suspect my paragraph structure and wording aren't the best..but you alluded to media formats and I'm not sure what needs adjusting. Thanks.
Sorry about that. Actually, we are used to pictures
, which is why we have made that request in the past, but we are a bit inexperienced in specifically finding audio hosting. We could probably use some advice for that. MediaFire, DropBox, GoogleDocs, Lime and so on seem way too bulky, clunky and invasive for the service of simply hosting an MP3. If you have suggestions for a "posting audio" topic, please put them here or even get another thread going in this forum.
In the mean time, our forum is most conducive to text, pictures and video for media critique because those formats are actually the source
since we don't usually critique radio. However, audio is powerful and needs to be critiqued; that is more the format of Fakeologist.com and its podcast formats.
To critique audio at CluesForum, you could throw a black screen with white text in a video file while explaining audio discrepancies. Or simply put it in the video description of a host like YouTube. By learning some minimal video software like MovieMaker or iMovie (or downloading a hacked copy of Premiere or something) you gain the ability to make a comparison video rather than audio, which will make audiences understand your point much quicker. But of course, keep using your great citation so people can check anything you say for themselves. Hope that's not too much of a request, and I don't mean to turn it into a hobby.
Presently, my advice would be the following:
For CRITIQUES of AUDIO
- Easily viewable videos for comparison of audio, with clear, text description of the critique
- Visual comparison of audio discrepancy (screen grabs of Audacity, for example)
Other possible formats:
- Hosted (personally or through a service) audio files with citation of original source
- Personal research web site with clearly labeled links to audio files