Changes To The Track Upload Limit Settings

Posts 1 - 25 of 47
  1. 1
    Looperman : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Just a note to say that im working on the way that track uploads are limited.

    At the moment there is a limit on the file size of individual uploads which is set to 10mb per track. There is also a limit of 50 tracks maximum per user.

    Some users have mentioned in the past that the 10mb file size is not big enough to upload longer tracks.

    With this in mind im suggesting a change in to how I limit things. The current setting of 50 tracks at 10mb each would result in a maximum of 500mb. After checking, I can see that in reality the maximum spaced used when a user has 50 tracks is more like 300mb.

    So far my thinking is that Ill adjust the maximum file size of a single track to 20mb but also set a limit on the total disk space used by all tracks for that user to 300mb.

    in short ....

    max tracks = 50
    max file size per track = 20mb
    max total file size of all tracks = 300mb

    Ive got this part way coded already but thought i would put it out there for peoples opinions. All being well i should be able to have this active start of next week.

    What are your thoughts ?

  2. 1416774
    SikNoiz : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I like that a whole lot.
    It kinda sucks having to compress or make "radio edits" for longer songs.

  3. 159051
    Unknown User : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Thumbs up

  4. 186161
    Spivkurl : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Not to be indelicate, of course, but how will that influence the couple of users who have expanded track uploads?

  5. 1
    Looperman : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    it will be based on existing allowances and worked out to suit

  6. 186161
    Spivkurl : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Sounds like a treat!! Thanks Shan!

  7. 828980
    Burtsbluesboxes : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    two thumbs up :D

  8. 1086187
    Orlando51 : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Generally I like the idea, but I think that the total file size of 300mb will be too low, particularly due to size of the individual tracks will be risen to 20 mb ! I think at least 400 mb if not more would be more appropriate .( For example...I have 43 tracks uploaded atm and I already well
    exceeded 300 mb...and this is by existing rules!).

  9. 111346
    Planetjazzbass : Sat 23rd Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Very very cool, great work Shan! this is going to allow a wider perspective on project construction, at times we may appear as a total bunch of ungrateful arguing lunatics but the vast majority of us appreciate the hard work you put in.

  10. 1461774
    TheParadigms : Sun 24th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Yea! 10MB was a drag.

  11. 994534
    Neomorpheus : Sun 24th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Great improvement for the site Shan.
    This has been a limiting factor that many have been taking issue with. Its going to be nice not having to hear the whining and see the off site links anymore.
    Thanks bro !

  12. 308224
    theHumps : Wed 27th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I agree with Orlando51, we have 500 now. To lose 200mb just because a few users want to upload longer songs is not the way to go and will leave many people, including me, on the short end of the stick. Leave the size at 500mb and allow users to upload up to 20mb size if they want. I think that is reasonable and it accommodates everyone.

    Honestly, people should be learning how to write decent 2:00 minute tracks before uploading songs longer than 8:00 but that is a discussion for another day.

  13. 498019
    Tumbleweed : Wed 27th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I think this responds well (apparently other than the total limit) to those who do longer compositions or want to upload higher bit rate files...we have all read and/or participated in the many discussions about MP3 quality...including me...but I defer to the actual studies on the matter...and The American Music Institute study says that 49% of listeners cannot tell the difference between a 160 kps MP3 and a full 16/44,400 wav file....I always upload at 192 kps so no problem with the way it has been...cheers...Ed

  14. 994534
    Neomorpheus : Wed 27th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I really think the greatest benefit of this is going to be allowing the higher bit rate or higher sound quality tracks. Personally I don't think Looperman should be considered a storage facility for everyones music. Shans 300mb limit is plenty enough for everyone to retain at least 15 to 30 tracks. Which is plenty. If you want to have more than that then get your own website! But we should be capable of supporting higher quality tracks than we currently do. Most of the other music communities are ahead of us on this issue so therefore I feel this is a necessary and worthwhile improvement. I think we need to all back Shan on this.

  15. 983645
    toastedavalanche : Wed 27th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    This has made my day. I always dread having to drop the quality of longer tracks and just end up editing my track as close to the limit as possible. I'd be happy to re-edit my tracklist if I got close to 300mb; it's always good to have a culling now and again. It means there is better quality all round.


  16. 1086187
    Orlando51 : Wed 27th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago


    With all due respect to your opinion Neo, I just can't agree with it ! I think this is not about personal storage but about presenting and sharing the music with fellow musicians. All that talk about supposed higher quality has no ground in reality. If we were to really aim at optimal quality, then lossless wav files should be allowed (aprox. 50mb average) and even then most of the listeners would hardly notice the difference between lets day 192 kbps and a wav version as Ed already nicely explained (let alone the differences within mp3 range) ! The only real benefit of this is the possibility to upload longer tracks without the need to go below 160 or even 128 kbps which is a cd standard and I fully support that part of intended changes. But raising individual tracks to 20mb and then limiting max upload to 300mb is frankly illogical to me. And afteral this is not a site for high level professionals and I truly believe that availability, presentation and sharing of music should have advantage over technical perfectionism which is anyway unachievable within mp3 standards !

    All the best______Orlando

  17. 186161
    Spivkurl : Wed 27th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I must agree with the sentiments stated about the 300mb limit. If you were to use right about the 20mb limit per track, this would only allow fifteen songs. That would be a difficult adjustment for sure.

    @Neomorpheus - I think that support of high bit rates would be useful for loops maybe, however sharing tracks at higher than 16 bit would be a bit tough to realize on a site like this, or so I imagine. I would feel at risk sharing all the song material at master sort of rates.

  18. 111346
    Planetjazzbass : Wed 27th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Just about to invest in some Grado phones, so I'll definitely be able to suss out the bitrate quality issue! lol...looking forward to the expanded track size, yah!

  19. 1
    Looperman : Thu 28th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    The current 50 track limit is there for the very reason of limiting the amount of space taken up by each users tracks.

    Just because 50 x 10 = 500mb there isnt a user who actually uses that much space

    I just checked the usage for every person who has made a comment in this thread and nobody would have gone over the limit if it were set to 350mb or an average of 7mb per track allowed so Ill adjust the limit to 350mb.

    Moving forward, only if an when i manage to add more disk space to the server would I be able to look at allowing more space to be used per user.

  20. 186161
    Spivkurl : Thu 28th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I did the math for my most recent 50 tracks, and it seems like 350mb would allow the same quality/length level I've been at for the same amount of tracks. This I can accept for sure. Then the option will be open to sacrifice the number of tracks for longer and higher quality tracks. I like the idea.

  21. 1086187
    Orlando51 : Thu 28th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Ok then! 350mb surely sounds better than 300mb and it seems like inevitable compromise due to server disk space limits,
    although the aforementioned math was done on the basis of existing rules which will ofcourse radically change when individual track limit is set to 20mb, so the users who want to have lets say more than 20 tracks on the list will still have to choose between quality and quantity. However, I accept this compromise and I understand Shan
    on this situation! Also I'm looking forward for possible improvements in the future.


  22. 847669
    EricMilligan : Thu 28th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I support the change, Shan. I've decided I have too many old (and somewhat embarrassing) tracks still up on the site anyway. I've had to make adjustments to a few tracks in the past to keep within the 10 mb limit, so allowing a track to hit a max of 20mb (I assume that is still the proposal) makes sense to me. For me, the limitation was more of a constraint on length, than of quality.

  23. 1074070
    Unknown User : Fri 29th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    Hi Shan,

    I think each user should have a maximum of 10 Tracks

    But give as much mb's per track that you will improve the quality of the music which also improves the overall listener experience on Looperman.

    Personally I'd rather only be aloud 10 x songs but each can have 50mb .... this would force all artists to keep flushing thru their songs to keep the newest and their own favourites up.
    50mb would also be nice if we could put wav. format up..even though its uses more room...however the quality would be a lot better than the current compressed mp3s or atleast make it optional if artists want to put up better quality recordings.

    Kindest Regards,


    *** Would also be nice if every visitor that came too Looperman looking for Acapellas and loops actually were forced to listen and review 1 artists song...but that's for another forum post**

  24. 186161
    Spivkurl : Fri 29th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    DJSLTUK, are you intending to turn this into soundcloud? I don't think that having 50mb per tracks would help the quality very considerably... plus many users of this site would all of the sudden be required to delete forty tracks. That's not cool. I find that the best quality of the tracks section here is the massive variety, plus that long lists of tracks on people's profiles.

  25. 111346
    Planetjazzbass : Fri 29th Apr 2016 : 6 years ago

    I think it's up to the individual to decide what they do with their tracks, at the present the 10mb limit confines and ultimately defines what length of track I make, if I had only ten track slots with a 50mb limit that would do what?...seriously screw with my outlook for one, I'd probably start writing music for soap operas!..just kidding but the issue is not to stimulate me into flushing my tracks, hell I don't need some quasi draconian X factor conditioning in the form of a ten track limit....what's good for one person isn't necessarily good for others.

Posts 1 - 25 of 47

 ! You need to Log In or Register to post here.