As MP3 becomes the standard...

[ggalen]

As MP3s rapidly are replacing CDs as the format most used to listen to recorded music, isn't that going to have a huge impact on the recording equipment industry?What is the point of creating a super high quality digital recording if it's going to be down-converted to a 128 MP3 file, losing most of that quality?Is there an argument that "you can still hear a difference" if it starts as a 24/96 recording?

[slideboardouts]

My ears aren't well trained enough to hear the a difference if the recording is done at 24/96, but on decent monitors I can hear the difference between mp3 and wav files. I can also hear a HUGE difference between exporting the mix as a wav and then converting to mp3 v.s. just exporting the mix as an mp3. Exporting as a wav and then converting to mp3 always sounds better and louder. Maybe thats different on other DAWs.So, I think that recording will still be done as high quality as possible, even as mp3s become the standard. -Steve

[mazz]

When memory and internet bandwidth get as inexpensive or more inexpensive than recordable CDs, you'll be glad your music was originally produced at the best audio quality possible because good sound will come back in to fashion, I'm confident of that.We're in another "cassette" cycle where convenience trumps sound quality but eventually it will turn around (fingers crossed). I hope people will again realize the pleasures of listening to music unaccompanied by visuals or games and allow the music to create the story in and of itself, kind of like reading vs watching TV. Or maybe I'm just fast becoming a dinosaur from another era.Mazz

[andreh]

Quote:What is the point of creating a super high quality digital recording if it's going to be down-converted to a 128 MP3 file, losing most of that quality?Is there an argument that "you can still hear a difference" if it starts as a 24/96 recording?I would say yes. If you could mix a multi-track session using 128k mp3's instead of 24/96 (or 24/44.1) wav's it would likely sound like total garbage by the time you summed all those low-fi signals together.Besides, many online music stores are now distributing tracks at higher bitrates (e.g. - iTunes uses 192k AAC, a much better sounding filetype than 128k mp3's), so the standard is already being raised.André

[andreh]

Quote:I can also hear a HUGE difference between exporting the mix as a wav and then converting to mp3 v.s. just exporting the mix as an mp3. Exporting as a wav and then converting to mp3 always sounds better and louder. Maybe thats different on other DAWs.This shouldn't be the case; I would check the export settings on your DAW carefully.André

[andreh]

Quote:Or maybe I'm just fast becoming a dinosaur from another era.You're still pretty hip for an old 8-track diehard...you and Stick! André

[ggalen]

Everybody,I wrote this because as I was thumbing through my latest issue of Sound on Sound, looking at the ads and reviews for $5,500 germanium-transistor compressors and other audiophile-quality equipment...I saw a disconnect: this stuff is going to be listened to on an MP3, probably!I think I would be nervous if I was a manufacturer of super high end, expensive recording equipment. It has to be a stagnant or falling market for the time being....at least until we leave the "cassette convenience" era as Mazz hopes, and the portable players move to full .wav files.I know it has certainly made me worry a LOT less about my recording sound quality. I've done things that sounded so good in my studio, only to hear the overall effect disappear on the MP3. I think there is always a market for this stuff to engineers, who basically do this stuff for themselves, and for other engineers to listen to. Because they love pristine, amazing sound.But right now if I ran a studio and my engineer came in telling me he MUST have the latest gizmo for $7,500...I'd tell him, sorry buddy...no.

[billg]

As a video/film guy also I look at it like this; when VHS was king, did movies shot on 35mm film & then transfered to VHS for home viewing look better than the VHS footage of your kid's birthday that you shot? You betcha it did! Same sort of thing. The "down" quality of a good original will always be better than the "down" quality of a not so good original. It's always going to be better to have the highest quality master that you can afford. my 2 cents -

[ggalen]

billg,Does that translate to the audio world? If the frequency is cut out when you drop to the MP3, it's just gone, isn't it?Maybe I don't understand enough about it. But that's the way it seems to me.At any rate, I am certain we'll be hearing that "original quality" argument for high-end mikes and gizmo makers!

[ernstinen]

In the old days of Napster, the mp3s that came from bad recordings sounded like crap, where the mp3s that were recorded well sounded a little better, but still pretty lousy.I agree that mp3s will go the way of cassettes. But I have some cassettes that are recorded off of vinyl (some with Dolby C) that sound A LOT better than CDs!The other day, I was transferring a CD (44.1 kHz, 16 bit) of mine into ProTools at 24/96. It sounded pretty good. But I had a thought: I had the original mix on a DAT (48 kHz, 16 bit) and thought I'd compare the two.Well --- the DAT sounded MUCH better! Now, I'm really sensitive to sound quality, but I was really surprised.So I'd say the answer is to record your stuff at the highest resolution possible. It DOES sound better, and down the road you'll be glad you did!Ern