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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Mark Kaufman]

Why, I remember when ProTools was Avid...(Not that it matters...I've only just begun to learn digital.)Seems to me that we have been watching continual improvements in digital sound technology. Processors get faster, more data can be stored in smaller formats, and we are routinely seeing affordable new options that were unheard of a few years prior.MP3s probably will fall under the wheels someday, to be replaced by higher fidelity formats like WAV files, or better...it's a matter of improving the storage capacity of portable players, computers, transfer speed, etc. Seems pretty near at hand to me.So the point of a super high quality recording? Well, if you're only concerned with the present moment, maybe it doesn't matter. But if you're recording something you feel is worth keeping for years to come...what's the point of a low-grade recording?...Side note: There have always been two camps concerning sound quality...the ones who are more focused on the music, and the ones who are more focused on the quality of the sound. I've always been the former...I still love my old Skip James records, crackles and all...and my old friends with their Bang & Olafsons who used to freak out if you sneezed too close to their precious vinyls...they are now watching golf on their new HDTVs....

[silvercord]

i wonder about when the sound link medium is completely minimized until there is a wireless signal streamed from the mother brain and directed into the jack that goes into our cerebrum and playz Miles Davis at 9,238,435,987,638,548,236k that would be fun.hehe~