Some annoying, nitpicky questions..

[inpfnegative2]

Mostly, or partly about audio.

Name of submission-- All, or almost all of my submissions will be named in some rushed, jumbled-up, random letters and numbers.
Should I just stick with one certain name for a little while and just sequentially number them, or something? (a1z2qw-00, then a1z2qw-01 and maybe stopping around 05 or 10 and then lhlhdssd-01, ect.)

Loop length-- "This is only a 3 second loop. It doesn't need to go on for over 2 minutes"-- Even if the loop changes slightly over time, but seems to not, should I cut it down? Like, a 3-4sec loop 2min in length cut down to 30sec. Am I only allowed to "loop" at most 3 times in a ("short") loop, or something?

Loop accuracy(?)-- If I made a loop loop smoothly, but after encoding to mp3 it may not loop juuust right, should I not submit it? Trial and error with pre-encoding compensation may annoy me.

Attribution / Licensing Terms-- If I put something in the long description, like, "You do not have to give credit to me", will that undo the whole "You must give credit to the artist" thing?

There are more questions I have, like how different do different submissions need to sound if they are variants of each other.

I have, maybe, 10 to 20 more audio submissions, maybe, that I am thinking about submitting.

Ultimately, I think I should have done that dump thing instead of submitting.
If the dump thing works like how I think it might, maybe I could put the audio in appropriately named folders regarding my questions and put that in a zip file.
But if I can't judge for myself whether the audio should be submitted, then I probably shouldn't submit it.

Final thing-- Kind of the only reason I am on here is to try to let people know about a certain open-source program thing.
I already mentioned it in my submissions' descriptions, but may I say the name of a website where someone could get the program/software thing?

[Cyberdevil]

At 12/6/16 12:26 PM, inpfnegative2 wrote: Name of submission

It's up to you entirely, though I do wonder why you wouldn't want to brainstorm more meaningful titles rather than alphanumeric gibberish? Maybe something related to the Open Source project you mention?

Loop length

If it's a loop with multiple identical loops after one another, then yeah I'd say cutting it down to minimum loop-length is the best option. With a longer loop you expect alternations on at least a significant length of the loop, plus you'd save filesize by cutting it down. Note though that though really short loops used to be appreciated due to their low size, for use in submissions, people don't care so much about that now. Generally, variation is rated over length.

Loop accuracy(?)

Well, first off you better not submit anything you're not proud of yourself. :) For short loops in particular, accuracy really makes a huge difference! For longer ones not as important.

Attribution / Licensing Terms-- If I put something in the long description, like, "You do not have to give credit to me", will that undo the whole "You must give credit to the artist" thing?

Hmm, though you are granting NG certain rights to your work by submitting it here, I assume it's a non-exclusive right, and license. You should thus be able to 'dual license' your content any way you like. You could release it under CC here, or entirely free for use elsewhere, though as for overriding the license on the same site as the one with said license... I don't know really. You're free to write anything you want of course, and NG doesn't own your submission, but under exactly which situations the license applies I have no idea.

Some good info here: http://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/504/can-i-override-a-licensing-policy

There are more questions I have, like how different do different submissions need to sound if they are variants of each other.

As long as the files aren't entirely identical, you can submit them all. If users receive them well or not, though, that's another issue. If they´re really very alike most users probably won't appreciate the differences, but ultimately that's all up to you.

I have, maybe, 10 to 20 more audio submissions, maybe, that I am thinking about submitting.

Ultimately, I think I should have done that dump thing instead of submitting.
If the dump thing works like how I think it might, maybe I could put the audio in appropriately named folders regarding my questions and put that in a zip file.
But if I can't judge for myself whether the audio should be submitted, then I probably shouldn't submit it.

Right.

Final thing-- Kind of the only reason I am on here is to try to let people know about a certain open-source program thing.
I already mentioned it in my submissions' descriptions, but may I say the name of a website where someone could get the program/software thing?

Yeah, that should be fine. A lot of people advertise their own sites/etc in their description. It's your space (as long as it's nothing that breaks the rules). Hope that answered your wonders somewhat?

[inpfnegative2]

I posted a zip file to Dumping Grounds and put links in my signature.

Even though I could rename the files after they are complete, I usually try to name the audio as fast as possible and with as random a name as I can give it so it will start recording and not overite other files.
I could search through random articles in a Wiktionary ZIM file to help find names. "coaequatote" "explivit" "definiremur"
I would probably have no idea what to name them, otherwise.

The 3-4 second loop issue/thing is probably going to (eventually) be a problem.

I repeatedly read the Terms, the rules, and the specific rules before I signed up and also after, I think, and I forgot/missed/overlooked "Files must be sampled at 44.1 kHz." (my current submissions may be 48.0 kHz) and, most importantly, "If you have any queries on whether something is acceptable or not, contact an audio moderator."

[Cyberdevil]

At 12/8/16 07:52 AM, inpfnegative2 wrote: I posted a zip file to Dumping Grounds and put links in my signature.

Cool. I had a listen and... that's some pretty... interesting stuff! I imagine might be useful as background noise/ambience too, some eerie, some static, some strange and dystopian... dream-like vivid (suitable name for the program), though for regular listeners you'll probably get a whole lot of "WTF is this?!" comments. :)

Even though I could rename the files after they are complete, I usually try to name the audio as fast as possible and with as random a name as I can give it so it will start recording and not overite other files.
I could search through random articles in a Wiktionary ZIM file to help find names. "coaequatote" "explivit" "definiremur"
I would probably have no idea what to name them, otherwise.

Well, the naming makes sense now that I know how they're being made. According to the Dream description though it seems to be a program that allows "DRM broadcasts to be received with a modified analog receiver", and as such: the audio you submit seems to be intercepted recordings rather than original creations? I'm wondering if this doesn't go against the clause that all submitted work has to be your own - similar to how uploading MIDI compositions of famous songs or remixes, are not allowed? How do these projects fare in terms of copyright, through the method of their creation?

The 3-4 second loop issue/thing is probably going to (eventually) be a problem.

Right.

I repeatedly read the Terms, the rules, and the specific rules before I signed up and also after, I think, and I forgot/missed/overlooked "Files must be sampled at 44.1 kHz." (my current submissions may be 48.0 kHz) and, most importantly, "If you have any queries on whether something is acceptable or not, contact an audio moderator."

Ah, well if the sounds play then that's no problem. Usually (at least in the past) you'd run into an issue trying to upload the file if it's anything else than 44.1.

[inpfnegative2]

I originally tried Dream thinking I could listen to radio through Wi-Fi / a Wi-Fi thing, but that never happened. There is no radio station audio used in "audiofqeipejd4.zip". I think "audiofqeipejd4.zip" could be seen as being all original.

It should be very easy for anyone to make things better than what I have made.

There can be interesting things made without introducing any audio. (audio/2/LOUD-Best-efkbsfe.mp3 (especially the first half))

If someone is going to use some audio, somehow, and state that there is no copyrighted stuff, or whatever, and can't or will not deal with the (probably huge) WAV file that would be created to save an entire session in order to have proof you didn't use copyrighted material, one option could be to record the entire session in a smaller, lossy (or lossless?) format using VLC media player and maybe only intermittently saving/creating WAVs directly from Dream if it calls for it.

I don't know if an "off topic" or "not for this Forum" thing is happening.

[Cyberdevil]

At 12/9/16 10:01 AM, inpfnegative2 wrote: I originally tried Dream thinking I could listen to radio through Wi-Fi / a Wi-Fi thing, but that never happened. There is no radio station audio used in "audiofqeipejd4.zip". I think "audiofqeipejd4.zip" could be seen as being all original.

Soo... what kind of audio does it fetch, to generate sounds like those found in that folder? Is it all atmospheric noise? Something else?

It should be very easy for anyone to make things better than what I have made.

There can be interesting things made without introducing any audio. (audio/2/LOUD-Best-efkbsfe.mp3 (especially the first half))

If someone is going to use some audio, somehow, and state that there is no copyrighted stuff, or whatever, and can't or will not deal with the (probably huge) WAV file that would be created to save an entire session in order to have proof you didn't use copyrighted material, one option could be to record the entire session in a smaller, lossy (or lossless?) format using VLC media player and maybe only intermittently saving/creating WAVs directly from Dream if it calls for it.

Interesting. Yeah, it definitely has the potential of making interesting things.

I don't know if an "off topic" or "not for this Forum" thing is happening.

It's still on topic of this one particular piece of audio production software in regard to copyright issues, so probably alright. :)