As MP3 becomes the standard...

[billg]

Maybe my VHS anology was bad. But the same still holds for digital sources . . . 35mm film or HD "down converted" to a dvd still looks better than regular digital video, ( like DV etc.) that begins life with lower resolution. I think this is true of any medium. The distribution sources are lower quality but the original sources are as high as people can afford. I really don't think anyone likes to throw money away so if this wasn't the case everyone would just be creating original content in the cheapest possible way regardless of quality. But I do agree that there is a lot of marketing hype connected with some audio gear. I'm sure there are inexpensive gizmos that perform as well as some of the costly botique models. I have a $300 tube mic that after replacing the tube I think sounds better than a $2,500 mic that I once had. Of course eventually you get into the whole subjective nature of what "sounds better."

[ggalen]

bill,Yes, the "sounds better" argument will go on.My wife is my "tester", as she represents the "average, non-technical music lover". She often gives me a kindly, puzzled look when I expect her to see the audio difference between two takes.I realize I, as a recording engineer at times, live in a different perceptual world than the average listener.By and large, I have been shocked at the inferior audio quality that the average listener is just fine with. But that's the reality and it hasn't changed in the 30+ years that high-quality stereo has been possible.People go 90% for the emotional impact of the song, I suspect. Beat, melody, and then lyrics.

[mazz]

Even with mp3s the old "Garbage In, Garbage Out" adage still applies.Higher resolution audio will record more information which will give the mp3 compression algorithms more to work with, thereby giving you a better chance at getting an acceptable sounding mp3.I'm looking forward to the day we can say "remember how crappy mp3s sounded? I'm sure glad we don't have to deal with that format anymore!"Mazz

[stick]

Quote: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! AndréHey now! I was mixing in the box with ProTools WAY before anyone thought it was "viable". The last time I touched a tape machine was in college 15 years ago! Sheesh, I do sound like an "old guy". I'm like the "old digital fart". Sound Tools anyone? And yes, it absolutely matters if you do your work for something better than an mp3. I'm not convinced going to 96k makes enough difference to be worth the extra drive space and DSP horsepower... I run everything I do at 44.1/24bit.

[arkjack]

Every once in a while I let my kids plug their iPods in the car radio. When I hear some classic rock songs that we both like that they have loaded as an mp3 playing through the car radio, I have to beat on them and say that they have to go listen to the original recordings from my CD collection so they can hear the difference. OTOH, when I play mp3s of my original songs for friends my age, vs the wav format, they can readily distinguish the quality difference and all the nuances, even commenting about eq and hiss. So I'm saying that younger listeners are at a disadvantage in that they didn't grow up listening to high quality hi-fidelity audio with Harmon Kardon speakers and JVC headphones with vinyl disks or CDs. They listen to TV speakers through the stereo of MTV VH1, or earbuds on their ipods with mp3s. No wonder were concerned about hearing damage. The damage is not being able to appreciate fidelity.ArkJack

[mewman]

Even if mp3s don't sound as good as older formats, by reducing the quality at the production end you only continue the downward spiral. I listened to an old Miles Davis album, "Someday My Prince Will Come", the other day and was shocked at the clarity of the trumpet sound. It's way better, in my opinion, than what's on a CD of the same recording. To enjoy that quality I have to change my needle regularly, run a brush on my record ever time I use it, make sure I don't scratch it when I flip it over every 15 to 20 minutes, etc.. Mp3s are extremely convenient. For those that want that convenience, the sound quality is "good enough". There are, however, still those who want the better quality recordings. Personally, I wouldn't want to see high end production values completely abandoned just for the sake of convenience. Technically, there is a good argument to record at 48/24. It has to do with the resolution of numbers in the compression schemes, something that I really can't explain well.... you'd have to talk to my friend Pierre...Mewman

[andreh]

Quote:Quote:You're still pretty hip for an old 8-track diehard...you and Stick! AndréHey now! I was mixing in the box with ProTools WAY before anyone thought it was "viable". The last time I touched a tape machine was in college 15 years ago! Sheesh, I do sound like an "old guy". I'm like the "old digital fart". Sound Tools anyone? And yes, it absolutely matters if you do your work for something better than an mp3. I'm not convinced going to 96k makes enough difference to be worth the extra drive space and DSP horsepower... I run everything I do at 44.1/24bit. Sorry Stick, thought I remembered you talking about that old-skool "technology" sometime before. In any case, what you and Mazz are doing with current tools is amazing, so whatever your music-making history is seems to have worked! André

[mazz]

Quote:In any case, what you and Mazz are doing with current tools is amazing, so whatever your music-making history is seems to have worked! AndréIn my case I guess it means the drugs haven't worn off yet! After all these years

[alterboy]

I wasn't one to switch over to MP3 until recently when Amazon starting selling downloads. After almost all of my CD's were stolen last year I've had to replace them and I decided it just wasn't worth it to have all those boxes hanging around. All the downloads I've gotten from amazon are 256kbps or more. The Sparta record I downloaded was 320kbps! I have decent ears, but i don't think i could tell the difference between the CD at that point.I think MP3's are here to stay. What I've noticed is some CD's (mostly newer) sound great as mp3's. Maybe instead of fighting we need to mix and master for the format. Mixing and mastering for vinyl was different as well. Though I do hear some audiophiles clamoring for FLAC files. The hard copy format is dead.

[steveha2865]

If nothing else, all of the gatekeepers that we have to submit music to are going to want to hear the best quality possible. Starting with mp3 source material is not going to get you to that point.