Acoustic Sounds Get Worser From Update To Update?

[Junis]

What is possible to do in Wb to change the tone of the acoustic beyond the pitch and tuning?

[Rewolf48]

Is nobody else having problems with the 2.0 Acoustics and HD500 over VDI?  

 

Something did change between 1.9 and 2.0 because the previously fine HD500 EQ, Compress, Reverb is now completely overloaded and even with the volume turned down sounds awful.

[ur2funky]

Is nobody else having problems with the 2.0 Acoustics and HD500 over VDI?  

 

Something did change between 1.9 and 2.0 because the previously fine HD500 EQ, Compress, Reverb is now completely overloaded and even with the volume turned down sounds awful.

 

Maybe something in your patch got messed up.  I'm having no problems with my patches over VDI, and I went 2.0, 1.9, 2.0 the other afternoon.  Decided to stay on 2.0 after a Strat/Dano body fix.

[clay-man]

It would be good to know what is the amp that virtzberg uses to play the aocustics. In my opinión the acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 sound really good, I play them through Guitar Rig 5 and I can get them to sound just like Pink Floyd in the live versions of wish you were here, if that is not good enough then I don't know what it is. 

 

Remember that teh acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 won't sound well through a normal amp.

 

Nice. I run mine into guitar rig 5 as well. I EQed it and it sounds a lot better. I suggest you guys do the same. A bit of EQ on a 100% dry channel. No amp no cab. If you're not doing it on the computer, do it on a proper set of speakers (Acoustic amp, PA speakers, or any type of speakers that you can plug in)

 

Dial in the lacking parts of the tone that you want, and push back anything overpowering that you don't like.

 

The point of the new acoustics is to sound like a genuine mic'd acoustic. The old Variax acoustic models still sounded very piezo-based. The new Acoustics adds a lot of missing body and resonance as well of the nuances of sounding like strings being recorded through a mic, and not a pickup system.

 

Remember that even at that stage, most people EQ their mic'd acoustic a bit to sound better in a mix of a track. 

[silverhead]

I believe the change in the sound of acoustics from v1.9 to v2.0 is related to the change in the HD modeling 'engine' of the JTV. I don't think the acoustic models themselves were changed (they were already HD as of v1.82).

 

Perhaps your HD500 preset has been somehow corrupted. Try recreating the offending acoustic preset from scratch (don't copy/edit) and see if the problem persists.

[Rewolf48]

Well I have managed to get the acoustics back into some resemblance of usable, but it was a dramatic fix - previously they were quiet even after the compressor so I had added 5bd of boost in the mixer at the end of the chain to balance the patches - this is what was causing the overloaded sound.  

 

With JTV 2.0 I had to change that to 5db of cut and move the mixer to the front to avoid overload of the EQ, and move the compression threshold up from around 30 to 90.  Even then I still think I am getting clipping on the initial attack - perhaps I should try turning down the volume down in Workbench HD.

[arislaf]

Is nobody else having problems with the 2.0 Acoustics and HD500 over VDI?  

 

Something did change between 1.9 and 2.0 because the previously fine HD500 EQ, Compress, Reverb is now completely overloaded and even with the volume turned down sounds awful.

As for me, yes I have the same problem, but I don't think is the version of the JTV...I updated the HD 500 just few days before to the latest firmware, and listened that the acoustic patches were much more different and aggressive...Even with the var 700 on acoustics...

 

I believe that the latest update of the pod, made the fx more powerful than before.

[guilhordas]

can you share this last patch of acustic? thanks

Well I have managed to get the acoustics back into some resemblance of usable, but it was a dramatic fix - previously they were quiet even after the compressor so I had added 5bd of boost in the mixer at the end of the chain to balance the patches - this is what was causing the overloaded sound.  

 

With JTV 2.0 I had to change that to 5db of cut and move the mixer to the front to avoid overload of the EQ, and move the compression threshold up from around 30 to 90.  Even then I still think I am getting clipping on the initial attack - perhaps I should try turning down the volume down in Workbench HD.

[mauritzSA]

I just received an email from Line 6 about a tutorial on getting good acoustic sound using the JTV and Pod HD by Sean Halley, but can't find a link to the tutorial. Does anybody know where this is?

[biofilm]

I just received an email from Line 6 about a tutorial on getting good acoustic sound using the JTV and Pod HD by Sean Halley, but can't find a link to the tutorial. Does anybody know where this is?

 

I've been looking for the video since I received that email earlier today... Have not found anything. They probably ran into some issues and will upload it soon.

[Junis]

I'm having difficulty getting a patch that has enough volume but not distort, I use the first chain, tube comp (tresh 89 and 26 level), graphic eq, reverb, the mixer I Set in center and 10 db, before I left the eq after the mixer and more distorted, after I put the eq before the mixer has improved, but still distorts a bit, I already tried using the eq studio flat just to give volume, instead of the tube comp but not much has changed

someone can give a suggestion?

 

I attached a print of my patch

 

 

 

[guitarno]

I just received an email from Line 6 about a tutorial on getting good acoustic sound using the JTV and Pod HD by Sean Halley, but can't find a link to the tutorial. Does anybody know where this is?

 

 

I've been looking for the video since I received that email earlier today... Have not found anything. They probably ran into some issues and will upload it soon.

 

I haven't heard of this yet. I'd really like to see this one. Be sure to post the link when you get it!

[ur2funky]

I got that same email, but there is no video linked to it, and I've searched online with no luck.  

 

 

 

[markcockerill]

I only use a variax acoustic model for recording so in that respect my Variax 700 acoustic still cannot be beaten by any version of JTV. I started work on a new song the other night (I usually play acoustic first) and played around with the JTV69 acoustics with FW 2.0, I soon picked up the 700 and the pleasure was instantaneous. The volume difference is astonishing for one thing, I cannot possibly use the JTV and expect any kind of quality acoustic guitars sound going on in the mix. I suppose if all I created was just acoustic only based songs then it would be a different matter but once I start layering all manner of sounds the definition of each instrument is no longer a huge issue. All I want to do is pick up an instrument and play, I don't have the patience any more to constantly mess about with stuff. Only my opinion mind.

[Rewolf48]

I'm having difficulty getting a patch that has enough volume but not distort, I use the first chain, tube comp (tresh 89 and 26 level), graphic eq, reverb, the mixer I Set in center and 10 db, before I left the eq after the mixer and more distorted, after I put the eq before the mixer has improved, but still distorts a bit, I already tried using the eq studio flat just to give volume, instead of the tube comp but not much has changed

 

someone can give a suggestion?

 

I attached a print of my patch

 

Having worked on this a lot more last night I will try to help.  My guess is that the EQ settings are the problem, and the raising of the gain to +10 in the mixer is overloading the reverb at certain frequencies, but not all. I can't see all the numbers (because the last two are just knobs), but I think that you have Graphic EQ settings of:

 

80    220   440   1.1k   2.2k

-2.0  -1.5  -8.5  -8.0?  +1.5?

 

So you are cutting massively in the main range of open string frequencies.... and then making it up in the mixer.  I think it is a bit unbalanced.

 

I admit that I don't know exactly what you are after, and honestly I am fumbling about just learning this stuff (still), but I would suggest that for an acoustic in a band mix situation you:

1. Move the EQ so that it is first in the chain, and bring the 440 and 1.1k values back up to about 0 and + 1.0 respectively, but reduce 80 to -5.0 unless you are playing solo and want the boomy low end.
2. Tube Comp set threshold about 80 and level about 20
3. Mixer both paths 0 and centered
4. Spring Verb try a little pre-delay ~15ms, tone right down to 30% and mix up to about 25%

At least that is what my memory is of my latest attempts which sounded fine last night through my PA speakers, but my ears might have been a little fatigued, and the higher level of low-end cut might be because my room is boxy and the speakers are in floor monitor position on a wood floor so I might be getting the extra low-end from the room.

 

Anyway try it as a starting point and tweak as desired (and tweak, and tweak, and tweak...)

[Junis]

Thanks mate, I'll test these their suggestions, and this coming weekend I'll have a gig and will test the patch in PA results, as you asked, the numbers of eq are -2.5, -1.5, -8.5 (the JTV acoustic guitar has very aggressive mediums), -7.7 and +2.0.Yes, you right, I look urgently a good patch to play with a live band (drums, bass and keybords, pop rock band. It's been two years that I did not do anything to not be tweak tweak tweak and tweak, I'm already going crazy LOL

 

 

[Junis]

I recorded a quick sample here via usb audacity in comparing the two patches .1 what you recommended and 2 patch I've ever had here, listen to see what you think ok? but we know that in PA it would sound completely different, but just to have a little notion

test.mp3

[Rewolf48]

That is roughly what I get, but also what I was going for (I am actually using the D12 with six strings).  

 

The first part (my roughly remembered settings - I am having a lunch break at work so I can't check) is artificial sounding, more full but without a muddy low.  I am trying to get a Peizo Acoustic sound that work in a band mix; a bit like an Ovation.  It is not a recording sound or intended to be, and it is not a solo acoustic guitar sound (but try switching the eq off).

 

The second part I think sounds great as an isolated guitar, and is the sort of thing that I had before, but with electric guitar, bass, keyboards, drums and vocals also playing it was just disappears into the mix leaving just high-end "zing" coming through if the drummer is light on the cymbals.

 

Or at least that is what I am hoping is the case -  I am an amateur struggling with the technology and had accusations of it being both Muddy and Thin at the same time before - the 2.0 update destroying the original sounds meant that I had to urgently try again; I get to try it out properly tonight.

 

I added a Hall reverb (as well as the Spring) as an optional effect to my patch last night; the spring reverb is short and dense and is filling out the guitar sound (giving it more body perhaps), the hall verb is acting more as a true reverb for those periods when I am playing by myself for an intro, it would get switched off when the other instruments come in.

[Junis]

you really think that eqs should stay in 1 in the chain of effects? the compressor would go where?

[Rewolf48]

I want to withdraw my suggestions for an acoustic patch as I need to do some more fine tuning. I might even start by re-flashing both devices and checking the piezo settings as there is something wrong that I can't sort out. I even have a big click as I change to Acoustic patches.

 

The "general rule" is that the Compressor always comes after initial EQ. This is so that a big signal in the unwanted part of the spectrum (removed by the EQ) doesn't control the compression amount.

[Rewolf48]

OK, I think I have it - at least until the next rehearsal.

 

First the 2.0 update has boosted the volume of the Acoustics significantly; they are much louder than any other model - that is the primary reason why my carefully balanced patch was destroyed.  The patch can be lowered in volume in Workbench of course.

 

But before I did that I tweaked the individual string volumes so that they were balanced to my ears and some needed to go about half the original level - which means less chance of clipping in the JTV modelling.

 

I also remembered somebody responding to requests for Acoustic patches with the idea of using an Amp.  I initially dismissed this because surely you want EQ and Compression right?  Actually want I really wanted was to be able to tweak the EQ directly using the knobs rather than having to muck about with the menus, and then it hit me. Doh! :wacko:

 

The HD500 already has EQs that respond to the knobs - abut 25 different ones in fact.  The Amp models, or more specifically the Amp Pre models with No Cab; excluding the high gain ones there are still 8 or so that are very clean when you take away the power amp and cab.

 

So my new patch is:

 

Marshall JTM-45 Pre: No Cab, Gain ~ 60, Tone and Presence as you like it and Vol nearly Full.

Tube Comp: Thresh 90 Gain 19

 

Reverb for when I am the solo instrument (I have Hall)

 

And that's it really - how can I have missed this for all the time I have had the HD500?  And to those who think they want an Acoustic Amp Model...have you tried the current models Pre No Cab?

[johnnyayyy]

The "general rule" is that the Compressor always comes after initial EQ.

 

Erm,...  I always compress first - with the eq before the compressor some eq changes tend to make the compressor do crazy things.

 

But I believe the rules are: "There are no rules".

 

The case for putting compression before eq: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct07/articles/qa1007_1.htm

[guitarno]

OK, I think I have it - at least until the next rehearsal.

 

First the 2.0 update has boosted the volume of the Acoustics significantly; they are much louder than any other model - that is the primary reason why my carefully balanced patch was destroyed.  The patch can be lowered in volume in Workbench of course.

 

But before I did that I tweaked the individual string volumes so that they were balanced to my ears and some needed to go about half the original level - which means less chance of clipping in the JTV modelling.

 

I also remembered somebody responding to requests for Acoustic patches with the idea of using an Amp.  I initially dismissed this because surely you want EQ and Compression right?  Actually want I really wanted was to be able to tweak the EQ directly using the knobs rather than having to muck about with the menus, and then it hit me. Doh! :wacko:

 

The HD500 already has EQs that respond to the knobs - abut 25 different ones in fact.  The Amp models, or more specifically the Amp Pre models with No Cab; excluding the high gain ones there are still 8 or so that are very clean when you take away the power amp and cab.

 

So my new patch is:

 

Marshall JTM-45 Pre: No Cab, Gain ~ 60, Tone and Presence as you like it and Vol nearly Full.

Tube Comp: Thresh 90 Gain 19

 

Reverb for when I am the solo instrument (I have Hall)

 

And that's it really - how can I have missed this for all the time I have had the HD500?  And to those who think they want an Acoustic Amp Model...have you tried the current models Pre No Cab?

 

That's interesting... I started to notice on some acoustic type patches on my HD500x that the variax had some particular notes (F#) that were really dominant when played with other notes. I went into workbench and for the 1st time started adjusting the string levels on one of the acoustic models - I forget the model (position 3 on the pickup selector of my 59). That one always seemed a little boomy and not as usable as the other 6 string acoustics. Adjusting the string volumes really improved that model. Maybe as Rewolf48 said, that is the key to getting a better sound out of the 2.0 acoustic models. I'll have to spend some time playing with the string balances.

 

   Also, I'll have to try your suggestions for the amp settings. Thanks for posting this! B)

[zedopaido]

Ok, I must confess

I just goat a JTV 69s and after playing it and loving the option to blend the mags with the modelling.

I started wondering with the acoustic, because of my style of playing ( latin, bossa-nova , samba, no flamenco please I hate flamenco) I noticed that they had heap of middle boost which I had to cut on the mixer console. 

So I searched around on google for a solution ( I don't have a pod hd and will not buy one) and found this thread. I downgraded to 1.7 and could not be happier. The old acoustics are much simpler and suits my playing best. Its a shame though. I loved the workbench HD and also blending with the mags . I have even ordered a dimarzio set area 58,67,61 do I can get rid of 60hm hums.

I hope line 6 will port the old sounds across and give us the option to mix and swap in future hd updates. As I'm sure some of us don't need and will never really use on a gig on some of the sounds in there. So given users the opportunity to upload to individuals need would make it a win win situation.

[clay-man]

I like how the new firmware sounds more mic'd than DI'd. I can understand how some people want it to sound more clean and clear. I think the old acoustics probably cut through a mix better.

[zedopaido]

Also I just want to take the time here and thank the person who started this post.

 

As I was in search for a guitar that I could have the E and A down an octave ....and  someone in another forum recommended the Variax JTV.

 

As I sing and play guitar, sometimes solo but and often as duo with a percussionist. I was using the Boss ultra octave with the range set on E A strings an octave ( Before I got the JTV) . The variax does much better job on drop tuning, hands down!! 

 

Ok ....So......When I got the variax. I was hooked, loved doing what guitarists do.    It came with firmware 2.10

 

Things I did straight after:

 

Installed 2  extra springs at the back in order to hold the bridge flat.

 

I do not need a tremolo ( I don’t play metal nor Rock). I reset the saddles for intonation purpose and put on 0.12 strings gauge ( Addario pure nickel) . With thicker strings my drop tuning ( E/A oct) sounded much better less warbler/vibration.  

 

My findings after hours doing what guitarists do ( doddling solos etc) was that the acoustic bank sounded great with lots of balls for ; solos, finger picking and maybe gently soft –plucking.

 

But when I actually started practising the material I really needed for gigs and singing  while playing .......all that illusive magic started fading. Too much mid on the acoustic models (2.10) unsuitable for my style of plucking and strumming.

 

My set up is very simple, guitar straight into the mixer with a little of reverb...... So immediately I had to roll back the mids (9 oclock), add highs (3 oclock)  and bass ( 2 oclock)

 

 

When using my drop tuning ( E and A string oct down) the acoustic d28 and j 200 were useless to me, their low ends were scooped out.  Only the Acoustic J sounds ok for my style, but still needed more highs/lows and roll of mids.

 

 

The acoustic tones on firmware 1.71 sounds fits my self-accompanying  needs perfectly.  It has just the right amount of mids, highs and lows, just beautiful.  Now I can actually just plug straight into a mixer or even a power speaker and the  acoustic tones actually will sounds like the acoustic guitar you hear in a songwriters performing in club. A clean piezo sound without quack and mid steroids.

 

Also the tone knob actually works!! It changes the character of the acoustics, try it!

. For instance  I have tweaked my acoustics  now that I have  5 totally different acoustic tones (6 strings)  on my custom bank 2 and different 4 combination of 12s. 

How? ....disable the parallel pitch of the 12 strings and you get a new guitar( workbench 1.75)

And the best news for me is when using  drop tuning ( E/A octave) they sound almost like a bass in all acc models. .

 

 

However this could be so much better if it could be done within Hd world.

 

I hope line 6 will finally listen and include all old models in the nexd Hd update.

 

Or better still Why not make it  a paid update?  Technicians will spend days/hours  reworking the data. A workbench plus is in much need as users are now craving to swap new models with old ones and vice versa. For instance some electric models I would totally erase from my guitar so I can upload more acoustic for my needs. Also the inclusion of parameters allowing adjusts to the body, mic positioning, ambiance, etc would be awesome and an absolute win win for al since it is a paid update l!!

[clay-man]

I think the new acoustic sounds need some EQing for a mix. Like I said, it's more now to sound like actual miked acoustics than DI'd acoustics.

Try to EQ to your liking to make it sit out in a mix better. 

 

If you honestly like the older acoustics better, then go for it, but you will have to lose some features with the POD (if you have one).

[stumblinman]

Exactly why I returned my JTV before. I didn't have time with my work and gig schedule to learn to play a guitar again.

Gig schedule is light right now, so I have another on the way so I can take the time to build new tones and get more comfortable with a lighter playing touch.

This. I found playing hard makes it sound very unnatural. Might be that "piezo quack" thing going on that's causing that.

[Leftzilla]

I ended up lowering my string volume across the board for both of my JTV 59 and JTV89F because I was getting distortion from the acoustics.  I have left my 59 at the 1.9 firmware due to some Fender emulation issues and upgraded my JTV 89F to the newest.  My band has recently started production on a live DVD based on our performance at RosFest in May.  In this setup I am running directly to the house from my HD500X which I specifically asked the sound guy to run flat since I run up to 5 different guitar emulations per song (Its Prog I have to!).  Anyways listening to the board tap very happily surprises me how good the acoustic emulation combined with the patch setup in my HD500X sounds.  It has even fooled some of my other guitar playing friends into asking whether I am doing the Alex Lifeson thing with an acoustic mounted on a stand.

 

Another nice thing I heard from the soundman at RosFest was "Finally somebody that knows how to use a variax" and I was also complimented by the sound guy at the Dover Brickhouse recently on the acoustic sound of the JTV89F who also said I was one of the first variax user he enjoyed the sound from.  I personally prefer the latest firmware sound.

[guitarno]

So you lowered the string volume "Globally" in the HD edit program for all the models, or just for the acoustic models? Does lowering the string volume, whether globally or just for the acoustics allow you to avoid having to use a lighter touch when playing the acoustics?. I found that playing lighter definitely helps, but I find this hard to do in a live context. I normally have a heavier playing style and find it difficult to play as lightly as needed by the acoustics when playing live.

[Leftzilla]

Yes when I lowered the string volume it definitely helped as I was getting an overload distortion via the acoustics.  You are exactly right that the acoustics really seem to need a light touch when playing.  However since dropping the strings volumes I find myself laying into the guitar more without getting the distortion I did prior I will see if I can post a live example.

[Leftzilla]

An live example of the acoustic tone out of the Variax direct to board via HD500X.  Obviously eq may not be to everybody's taste but you get the idea of the sound and attack.

Acoustic Example Amber.mp3

[guitarno]

Sounds good! Thanks for posting the clip. Seems to sit really well in the mix & sounds pretty authentically acoustic. I'll have to experiment with lowering the overall string volumes in workbench. How far did you end up lowering the string volumes (in Db) in workbench to get them where you like them? 

[clay-man]

Just remember to not lower them so much that it affects tone in a bad way. One example is that the Sitar will not drone/resonate at extremely low string volumes.

[Leftzilla]

Well it looks like you will have to experiment a bit.  I pulled in my presets off of the 89F and found all of my string volumes set to 100%  (I was updating my 59 to 2.1) I haven't had a chance to sit down with it to verify my sound but initial test through my amplify show I will need some tweaking.

[guitarno]

Well, I cut the overall string volumes by 3Db on all strings just for starters. I've played with that for a day or so, but not really feeling or hearing much difference yet, maybe a little, but I'll have to play with it some more. I'm a little supprised that 3Db made as little difference as it has. As you said, I'll have to experiment a little to find my sweet spot.

[Rewolf48]

Don't forget that the software has to cope with a wide range of string gauges, playing styles and manufacturing tolerances - it is only to be expected that it will include some sort of dynamic compression before modelling. The global settings apply before this stage, so the trick is to get the level when that compression is minimised for your specific guitar, set-up and playing style without going too low in level and killing the resonating string on the sitar for example. 

 

When I did this I was down at -7db on the lower 4 strings and -4db on the top 2.  Then I upgraded the firmware and at didn't sound good at all. So if you do a firmware upgrade you need to reset the global string levels back to 100% and then calibrate them again.

 

I really wish that when connected to Workbench HD there was an auto calibrate procedure that allowed you to strum the strings as hard as you would normally do when playing loudly and for the software automatically adjust the level for each string to that point where compression is minimised.

[zedopaido]

Hi guys,

I just recorded a little groove on both firmwares. 

I played a gig over the weekend and this guy walked up to me saying he had a variax 89  and wanted to  know what pedals I was using.

I showed him I simply plug direct into the mixer with some reverb he was like.......WTF?? 

Then I told him I was still on firmware 1.71 and he urged me to record a little comparison and email it over as he wanted to try to replicate the settings . I emailed him some strumming stuff on both firmware.

 

Oh also shall I mention that he has a Pod Hd?

 

I just decided to record and post it here the groove I was jamming on that night. It is very simple groove which I just learned from Kevin Davis Ban Caribe, check them out they got so much soul and sabor!!

 

Most times I play using the E and A strings one octave down on the acoustic and that's how I was playing that night.

 

Anyway on this recording I started with firmware 1.71 and I have 5 acoustic sounds. from 00;00 - 01:44

From 01:49 are all my acoustic sounds that I have on HD I've tweaked some sounds on HD so I have 7 banks.

The 12 string guitars have only 6 strings on both firmware.

The HD firmware sometimes makes it uncomfortable to play (for me) ,as I hear and you will hear too this sometimes harsh sound even though I tried to maintain the same way playing through the loop, not plucking too hard.

 

I really dislike and sometimes wonder how line 6 technicians managed to make the low strings and octave down sound worst  on HD. As you can hear they are clearly scooped out, even the highs sounds are rolled off. 

Ok The only useable selection to ME on HD is the one on 03:54 .

 

I love the octave down on firmware 1.71!

 

 

I recorded this in real time and tried to keep the same tempo and sometimes shifting/rushing the tempo can be inevitable, sorry .

.

http://www.4shared.com/mp3/z4UMU_aTce/VARIAX_JT69S_FIRMWARE_COMPARIS.html

(This recording is not a demonstration of my playing )

 

No Eq or amplifier was used , total flat.  The recording was done straight into Cubase with a touch of reverb.  

 

Also my new discovery doing this tests was between re-flashing from 1.71 to hd 2.10 I kept playing the guitar thinking of what to record. All of sudden the sound cut off and only the piezos. I repeat only the pure piezo was audible. And I was like Wow..... they sounded different and even more normal sounding, no steroids whatsoever. Of course it lasted for about a minute as the guitar wass updating itself then it cuts off to  no sounds.

 

But this little experience made me wonder , how nice it would be to have access to the pure organic piezo sound with no steroids and then be able work on workbench  from there.

 

 

here is the recording , and soon I will record something using that awesome piezo sound while is re-flashing.

This guitar as so many simple expandability and profitable  possibilities to line 6 that it is ridiculous how limited I find myself with HD. Anyway it is just my opinion,   I hope they still have they heart on it though. 

[radatats]

I'd like to check it out but you should find a more user friendly host than the one you are using...

[guitarno]

Yes, I agree, the host you have this file on is not a great place to share files. First they wanted to download some junkware onto my machine, then I need to "Sign on with Facebook" to get the file. I'm not willing to jump through hoops to listen to this. Maybe you should post it to to a reputable site like dropbox, or soundcloud.