Commons:Featured sound candidates/File:A Chantar2.ogg

File:A Chantar2.ogg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 01:54:22
To visit the nomination page click here. (File Location)

• Category: Commons:Featured sounds/Music
•  Info created and uploaded by Makemi - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bitrate is below the guideline minimum of 128kbps. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like it, but can't go against the bitrate rule, which is itself very minimal IMO. Sorry -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I used to teach this song as a musical example in Western Classical Music Survey/Appreciation courses, but I think I can actually hear the problems with the sound on my speakers. This should be nominated for Valuable Sound when that project is started, unless we can get a suitably licensed recording that's better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Very good voice and good quality audio. I cannot hear with my hears that this melody has low quality. Do I have problems with hears? :) Quality for quality? Nonsense. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - No-one said that the melody is of low quality. It's a very beautiful melody. That isn't the issue. But it's really best not to assume and assert that no-one could possibly hear anything you can't hear. There are bound to be people who have duller and keener ears than any of us. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Also, the quality of the playback equipment each of us uses could make a huge difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose low bitrate does not inspire confidence, sorry. Vulphere 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support — Given that there is only human voice (no background music or other non-vocal sounds) in this recording (and each person’s voice does not encompass a huge bandwidth of frequencies), I believe the low bitrate is sufficient enough to capture the whole song without seriously compromising its understandability. The 128-kbps minimum is only required for full music and other sounds that cover very wide frequency spectra – which may not be reliably picked up with low bitrates; but here, this is not the case. Thus, I would exempt this performance from the 128-kbps bitrate rule; I believe such bitrate rule should be split into two or three separate standards (with different minimum bitrate requirements) for various different types of sound content. ‐⁠‑🌀⁠SilSinn^AL982100⁠💬 23:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - I don't think "understandability" is a good minimum standard. It's great to understand the lyrics, and her diction is extremely clear. But what about the sound quality? And when you talk about a small spectrum of frequencies, I think you're ignoring upper harmonics too much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment In some recordings, a low-pass filter is applied, thus getting (almost) rid of such harmonics depending on whether they are desirable or not. ‐⁠‑🌀⁠SilSinn^AL982100⁠💬 05:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - Yes, of course that option can be taken. As a flutist and sometimes a piccolo player, I know what doing that does to recordings of my instruments, and it's not good (a great advantage of digital over analog recordings of those instruments, when analog recordings are limited in the upper frequencies), but you might want that sound in certain situations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)