Changes To The Track Upload Limit Settings

Posts 26 - 44 of 44
  1. 1121110
    traz75 : Fri 29th Apr 2016 : 3 years ago

    There are some technical difficulty with the current system's maintenance?

    Because from 50*10 limit (500 mb) to 50*6 (300 mb) limit is a real stepback i think. The 10 mb/track limit affects very few people i think, but a 300 mp/user will affect a lot more members actually almost anyone who have 50 tracks uploaded i think (except ones who upload low bitrated tracks). Actually, i'm a bit above of 350mb too i think. :)
    I like the site (apart from the loops) especially for the fact, i can upload a lot of tracks with good sound quality and can hold uploaded for a long time, unlike ANY other sites.

    If nowhere a technical (or financially etc) difficulty, i don't see a reason to a limit like this, just for the sake of 1% of the users.
    I bet, even without any size limit, 99.99% of the users upload behavior will be unchanged. (ok, i know, the problem is with the 0.01% mentally ill dude, so a limit is needed anyway :D)

  2. 1414881
    BradoSanz : Fri 29th Apr 2016 : 3 years ago

    Traz, I don't think you read Shan's post clearly :) its a cap of 300 mb BUT a max filesize of 20mb per song now. Not 50x6.

    Brado

  3. 1231236
    joecramer : Sat 30th Apr 2016 : 3 years ago

    I have reached this 50 track mark often.
    I don't know how much space i use but i always try to get so close to 10 Mb as it is posibel. ......

    I can understand that some member would love to upload higher samplerates or longer tracks.
    I also can understand that some would love to upload more then 50 track (like me, cause it sucks to delete tracks)

    You say - 10 Mb per track and 50 tracks = 500 Mb and that is was/is ok for the system.

    So i wonder why you not just change the system to a
    500 Mb upload space limit and NO limit to the tracks at all.

    All who think they need longer or better tracks can upload so what ever they like and the other can (if they like and/or have) upload more then 50 tracks ......

    Your idea is only good for safe space for the system and you give it all a touch of - static nomad (and people like him) are the reason why it has to be done ....

  4. 186161
    Spivkurl : Sat 30th Apr 2016 : 3 years ago

    JoeCramer makes a very good point. Especially with this - "So i wonder why you not just change the system to a
    500 Mb upload space limit and NO limit to the tracks at all."

  5. 1086187
    Orlando51 : Sat 30th Apr 2016 : 3 years ago

    I also like Joe's point of view very much, but it became
    clear to me that all this will be done solely with the purpose of limiting the server disk space usage and that the idea of expanding individual tracks to 20mb is more kind of a compensation in order to comfort users a bit..:)

  6. 1414881
    BradoSanz : Sat 30th Apr 2016 : 3 years ago

    Orlando has a point. I'm happy either way. A 4-minute 320kbps MP3 song is about 10MB, so an 8 or 10 minute song at 320kbps would be just over 20MB. I'm happy either way, since most of my music is rarely longer than 5 minutes. Good work Shan, thanks for staying active within the community!

    Brado

  7. 1
    Looperman : Mon 20th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Ive just implemented these updates. You should now see a few changes on the tracks pages.

    For those that have not read back through this thread.

    max tracks allowed is by default 50
    max amount of space those tracks can use is by default 350 mb

    you can have either 50 tracks or use up to 350mb based on which ever limit you hit first.

    The reason behind the update was to allow you to now upload tracks in mp3 format up to 20mb rather than the previous limit of 10mb.

    Any problems let me know in this thread or contact me direct if its more suitable

  8. 186161
    Spivkurl : Mon 20th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Thank you Shan for the update! From my calculations it will benefit far more people than it will be a downgrade for. As I remove old songs, from before the site rebuild, I will need to chose between quantity and quality, but there is little argument about which is better. It is an especially minor sacrifice considering the rarity of someone listening to a non-featured track. Here is hoping that people will take advantage of this, and only upload 320 kbps MP3's now! I'm looking forward to the barrage of higher quality encoding!

  9. 111346
    Planetjazzbass : Mon 20th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Been looking forward to this cool upgrade, thanks for the hard work Shan! :) cheers

  10. 951439
    Evisma : Tue 21st Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    The "Tracks Allowance" window is very nice on the upload page, showing your number of tracks and space used/available.

    Thank you for this, and everything else!

  11. 1414881
    BradoSanz : Tue 21st Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Definitely a great addition. Thanks for the update Shan! I love it!

  12. 1051376
    mildperil : Wed 22nd Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    It's not letting me upload tracks at the minute, and it says that my Max Track Size = 0 bytes.

    I'm not even getting any errors, the track I'm attempting to upload is around 6MB, and I have 350MB of remaining space, and it just simply won't upload. Any ideas?

  13. 1051376
    mildperil : Wed 22nd Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Scratch that, it was my network. Uploaded it on a new network and there were no issues.

  14. 588276
    StaticNomad : Sun 26th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Damn, I've just had to delete 10 tracks to be able to upload one new one!

    I was using something like 450 MB. If I want to upload at 320K, I'll have to have many fewer tracks on here.

    Oh well...

  15. 186161
    Spivkurl : Sun 26th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Like I mentioned, StaticNomad, we'll have to chose between quantity and quality. That seems like a pretty standard duality, especially on the internet.

  16. 1231236
    joecramer : Sun 26th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Ah, it's like i believed it would be ......
    Looperman will lose people who are not members jet, (or at least lose some promotion) cause this side now will only used by members to show there tracks to other members and then they will upload the tracks to other sides for let non members listen to there work .... not a good thing i believe but sides like reverb and soundcloud will be happy with that :)

  17. 630386
    JoeFunktastic : Tue 28th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    @Looperman

    Hey there Mr. Shan, okay so the changes are in effect now but I noticed you did not penalized those who are already over the limits like me. I am at 50 tracks (some are hidden) and I am currently over the storage limits(at 390MB). So what I found is I might have to delete about five tracks in order to upload one to get in compliance with the new allowances. I am not complaining, but is that what we all must do if one currently already exceeds the limits before the new enforcements you recently put in effect? I get the fact that you are trying to optimize space and system usage more efficiently here and thank you.

  18. 588276
    StaticNomad : Tue 28th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    Mr Funk:

    See my above post. I was at 450MB and had to remove ten tracks just to upload one new one.

    "what I found is I might have to delete about five tracks in order to upload one...is that what we all must do if one currently already exceeds the limits before the new enforcements you recently put in effect?"

    Haven't you already answered your own question?

    Yes, Shan is apparently not removing tracks for people using over 350MB. They'll have to do that for themselves if they want to make any changes to their tracks, as I did.

  19. 630386
    JoeFunktastic : Tue 28th Jun 2016 : 3 years ago

    @StaticNomad

    Ah ha! I guess I did, but yeah lol static, you are correct. Maybe I was thinking out loud trying to come to grips with the inevitable. Never mind Shan.

    Funk!!!

Posts 26 - 44 of 44

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

From The Forums
Watched Forum Threads