Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How much does fidelity matter now?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:41:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I notice I rarely turn on the FM radio now to listen to music anymore, and I
rarely listen to the music in my own collection. Why? Because with Internet
radio, I can listen to new music that is specifically what I want to hear.
With regard to fidelity, it's not great, and not terrible, but it's more
enjoyable than listening to something at higher fidelity targeted to be merely
not-annoying to the majority of listeners, or something I've heard enough for
a while in my own collection.

So, to target a listener like me, you don't need any fidelity high enough to
matter over a better medium than 128Kbps MP3. If that's the target, what
pieces of our gear and signal chain still have to be top-notch, and which no
longer matter enough to spend 1000s on a single piece?

I suspect a mic pre still matters plenty, but the mixer? The A/D converters?
Lack of noise from fans, etc. in the room?

What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
MP3 world?

More about : fidelity matter

Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:05:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I think it's more a question of, who does it matter to? I don't think
it's ever mattered much to the average music fan. To audiophile
geeks, engineers, and musicians it matters a lot.

Al

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:41:21 -0800, Steve Jorgensen
<nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

>I notice I rarely turn on the FM radio now to listen to music anymore, and I
>rarely listen to the music in my own collection. Why? Because with Internet
>radio, I can listen to new music that is specifically what I want to hear.
>With regard to fidelity, it's not great, and not terrible, but it's more
>enjoyable than listening to something at higher fidelity targeted to be merely
>not-annoying to the majority of listeners, or something I've heard enough for
>a while in my own collection.
>
>So, to target a listener like me, you don't need any fidelity high enough to
>matter over a better medium than 128Kbps MP3. If that's the target, what
>pieces of our gear and signal chain still have to be top-notch, and which no
>longer matter enough to spend 1000s on a single piece?
>
>I suspect a mic pre still matters plenty, but the mixer? The A/D converters?
>Lack of noise from fans, etc. in the room?
>
>What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
>MP3 world?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:08:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:21:39 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...
> >
> >> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in
gear in an
> >> MP3 world?
> >
> >Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology,
represents
> >roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.
> >
> >DM
> >
>
> That's true, but money now is worth more than money later.
>
> If I can spend less time saving for gear before producing a
marketable product
> today, that's more profit to spend on newer, better high end gear
later when
> it matters again. If so, it would be good to know which pieces one
can and
> can't skimp on today based on the current fad.

Microphones will always make a significant contribution
to the amount (or lack) of character of any signal chain.
Speakers, being transducers just like mics will also
impart a larger portion of any coloration than for example
any piece of electronics. The reason is that most any
electronic element in a system can be operated in a
fairly linear fashion if used correctly. Yes even those
pesky A-D converters are going to impart a very small
part of the overall character. Spend your money on mics
that are appropriate to the sources, and spend your time
matching those two up.

rd

ps - try not to get caught up in fads.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:17:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I think a lot of peoples' will replies will be to the effect of this:
A photo copy of a picture taken with a 2000 dollar camera is still going
to look better than a photo copy of a picture taken with a 10 dollar
disposable.

Roach

Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> I notice I rarely turn on the FM radio now to listen to music anymore, and I
> rarely listen to the music in my own collection. Why? Because with Internet
> radio, I can listen to new music that is specifically what I want to hear.
> With regard to fidelity, it's not great, and not terrible, but it's more
> enjoyable than listening to something at higher fidelity targeted to be merely
> not-annoying to the majority of listeners, or something I've heard enough for
> a while in my own collection.
>
> So, to target a listener like me, you don't need any fidelity high enough to
> matter over a better medium than 128Kbps MP3. If that's the target, what
> pieces of our gear and signal chain still have to be top-notch, and which no
> longer matter enough to spend 1000s on a single piece?
>
> I suspect a mic pre still matters plenty, but the mixer? The A/D converters?
> Lack of noise from fans, etc. in the room?
>
> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
> MP3 world?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:21:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...

> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
> MP3 world?

Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.

DM
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:21:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:21:39 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...
>
>> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
>> MP3 world?
>
>Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
>roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.
>
>DM
>

That's true, but money now is worth more than money later.

If I can spend less time saving for gear before producing a marketable product
today, that's more profit to spend on newer, better high end gear later when
it matters again. If so, it would be good to know which pieces one can and
can't skimp on today based on the current fad.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:32:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I think a lot of peoples' will replies will be to the effect of this:
> A photo copy of a picture taken with a 2000 dollar camera is still going
> to look better than a photo copy of a picture taken with a 10 dollar
> disposable.

This is OT, but... What you say is logical, but not necessarily true. Pop Photo
tested a single-use Kodak camera with a high-quality lens that Kodak claimed
produced image quality essentially the same as expensive 35mm SLRs. Pop Photo
pooh-poohed it, but determined that the claim was valid.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:35:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...

>>What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
>>MP3 world?

> Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
> roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.

Indeed! The only reason lossy compression like MP3 exists is economics.
As network speeds continue to increase and hard disk sizes continue
to increase, the need to compress the data will become less and less.

I am working on building a music PC for home, and I've calculated
that my 400 CDs will fit on the 200 GB drive just fine if I use
lossless compression. And these days, you can buy a 300 GB drive
for $130 -- I just saw one in the store for that price.

My guess is there's a good chance that lossless formats like flac and
Apple's lossless format will start to catch on more and more and may
become mainstream. And even if they don't become more popular than
lossy compression, people who are even vaguely serious about sound
quality will be going lossless. The storage cost difference between
lossy (MP3) and lossless (flac) is $100 or less for a regular person's
music collection. If you care about sound quality, there is just no
reason to even bother with lossy compression.

- Logan
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:35:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:35:23 GMT, Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

>David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...
>
>>>What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
>>>MP3 world?
>
>> Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
>> roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.
>
>Indeed! The only reason lossy compression like MP3 exists is economics.
>As network speeds continue to increase and hard disk sizes continue
>to increase, the need to compress the data will become less and less.
>
>I am working on building a music PC for home, and I've calculated
>that my 400 CDs will fit on the 200 GB drive just fine if I use
>lossless compression. And these days, you can buy a 300 GB drive
>for $130 -- I just saw one in the store for that price.
>
>My guess is there's a good chance that lossless formats like flac and
>Apple's lossless format will start to catch on more and more and may
>become mainstream. And even if they don't become more popular than
>lossy compression, people who are even vaguely serious about sound
>quality will be going lossless. The storage cost difference between
>lossy (MP3) and lossless (flac) is $100 or less for a regular person's
>music collection. If you care about sound quality, there is just no
>reason to even bother with lossy compression.
>
> - Logan

That's compelling, but how long until the majority of the public starts
demanding iTunes and their streaming audio to be in FLAC instead of MP3 or
AAC?

Storage is one thing, but some people are still on dial-up Internet, and even
my expensive Cable Modem broadband (according to the spec) is barely fast
enough to handle 4 FLAC streams. Even that would be discounting IP packet
overhead and assuming the server can feed all the listeners at those speeds,
and there are no traffic jams in the routers along the way.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:35:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw wrote:

> I am working on building a music PC for home, and I've calculated
> that my 400 CDs will fit on the 200 GB drive just fine if I use
> lossless compression. And these days, you can buy a 300 GB drive
> for $130 -- I just saw one in the store for that price.

Would you consider putting an archive like that on anything
less than a times two redundancy RAID? How about offsite
backup? :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:54:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:8dmn21t2rnkiv2jdsdttpel0apmaq3ce73@4ax.com

> I notice I rarely turn on the FM radio now to listen to music
> anymore, and I rarely listen to the music in my own collection. Why?
> Because with Internet radio, I can listen to new music that is
> specifically what I want to hear. With regard to fidelity, it's not
> great, and not terrible, but it's more enjoyable than listening to
> something at higher fidelity targeted to be merely not-annoying to
> the majority of listeners, or something I've heard enough for a while
> in my own collection.

Item number one - while you go on to criticize the quality of 129 Kb MP3s,
you should be aware of the likelihood that you've just admitted that you are
in the habit of listening to something worse, perhaps even far worse.

> So, to target a listener like me, you don't need any fidelity high
> enough to matter over a better medium than 128Kbps MP3.

If you target yourself at today's mainstream quality-involved consumer, I
think you should set the bar a little higher. This consumer is probably
listening to 192 Kb MP3s or their equivalent or CDs, using a portable
digital player with technical performance good enough sound goo in a high
end stereo, and via an after-market earpiece in the $100-200 range (Etymotic
ER6i or Shure E-3C for example).

> If that's the target, what pieces of our gear and signal chain still have
to be
> top-notch, and which no longer matter enough to spend 1000s on a
> single piece?

I don't see how any part of the signal chain can get the slack-off treatment
with so many listeners running around equipped as above.

> I suspect a mic pre still matters plenty, but the mixer?

The mixer is probably going to be a DAW and DAWs can easily outperform
everything that has even been dreamed about in the analog domain.

>The A/D converters?

Not nearly the concern they once were. Good $1 chips vastly outperform the
best we had 20 years ago, even 10 years ago.

>Lack of noise from fans, etc. in the room?

Always an issue.

> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear
in an MP3 world?

Room, mics, everything else.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:54:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> If you target yourself at today's mainstream quality-involved consumer, I
> think you should set the bar a little higher. This consumer is probably
> listening to 192 Kb MP3s or their equivalent or CDs, using a portable
> digital player with technical performance good enough sound goo
> in a high end stereo, and via an after-market earpiece in the $100-200
> range (Etymotic ER6i or Shure E-3C for example).

I love that rich, liquid, chocolatey midrange. <grin>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:58:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ef3o21lnq8bnk2hnmdhigb4c7o3igugvj6@4ax.com

> Well, I always record at 24-bit, and the difference is clear,

Only in the production environment. As a distribution format 24 bit is
clearly overkill. As a production format 24 bits are a little overkill-ish.

> but does 96K actually gain you anything?

Not if you listen with your eyes closed.

> The prevailing wisdom on this
> NG has always seemed to be that the difference is not audible, but
> 96K definitely takes more space on your drive and reduces the number
> of tracks you can handle at once.

Agreed. I've been doing some work that involves good-quality recordings
running a little over 4 hours. At 44/16 the largest possible stereo .wav
file only runs for about 6 hours and 20 minutes.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:11:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:fvsn21psjcoimvek0bqrg80t0msfc7dkkd@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:21:39 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...
> >>
> >> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
> >> MP3 world?

> >Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
> >roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.
> >
> >DM

> That's true, but money now is worth more than money later.

Well then... what is it you are trying to accomplish?

> If I can spend less time saving for gear before producing a marketable product
> today, that's more profit to spend on newer, better high end gear later when
> it matters again. If so, it would be good to know which pieces one can and
> can't skimp on today based on the current fad.

As poor as most 128k MP3s seem to sound, it would appear you can dive
right in with anything that will get you a reasonable recording and mix. <g>

I picked up some gear last year from a company that specialized in creating
audio for the internet - they were dumping some pretty darned good stuff in
favor of what I considered to be mostly cheap junk or outright trash. They
were keeping a few average mic pres, some tiny Behringer mixers, a hand-
full of RE-20s for voice work, and dumping everything else hardware (except
volume maximizers) in favor of computer software. The man who walked
me through the gear was very frank in saying that after the audio levels were
maximized into oblivion by the program creators (recordists) and then by the
software, then further mutilated my the encoding and streaming process, that
he was gambling his reputation and future employment on the fact that most
end users, as well as those intermediary purchasers of his company's work
for re-broadcast, would never know the difference. He's still gainfully employed
there and the changeover was a financial success for his company.

But I'm not certain that I truly understand your question. Your source material
will still (or should) be the best quality you can make it. MP3 is just a weak file
compression format for transmission purposes, which is the result of some
chosen software encoding process performed on your source material. I know
that I'm not telling you anything you don't know already.

The people in this group turned me on to "Lame" for encoding. I see no reason
to change anything about the rest of the way in which we work or the equipment
that is used. Just encode well and hope available bandwidth en route to the end
user is on your side.

If we had a choice in the matter - which we usually don't - I'd prefer to listen to
everything via the internet at a rate *far* greater than 160k. 128k still simply
sounds bad for music... while 32k can sound excellent for mono voice. Still,
this means that the majority (instead of the minority) of end users need to have
the high bandwidth capability, and there are still more dial-up connections in this
country. I don't think it's fair to encode for only the privileged.

Given the content of some other recent threads which are indicating that even
cell phones may become a viable source for receiving audio, I can only suppose
that the 'bar' will continue to be lowered by the end user's lack of descriminating
taste in listening. Maybe fidelity really won't matter all that much any longer, at
to least to a few people. But I'll hang onto the concept that over the medium term,
it will again become a factor that indeed 'matters'.... hopefully, much quicker than
anyone expects.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:11:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:11:19 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:fvsn21psjcoimvek0bqrg80t0msfc7dkkd@4ax.com...
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:21:39 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
>> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...
>> >>
>> >> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
>> >> MP3 world?
>
>> >Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
>> >roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.
>> >
>> >DM
>
>> That's true, but money now is worth more than money later.
>
>Well then... what is it you are trying to accomplish?
>
>> If I can spend less time saving for gear before producing a marketable product
>> today, that's more profit to spend on newer, better high end gear later when
>> it matters again. If so, it would be good to know which pieces one can and
>> can't skimp on today based on the current fad.
>
>As poor as most 128k MP3s seem to sound, it would appear you can dive
>right in with anything that will get you a reasonable recording and mix. <g>
>
>I picked up some gear last year from a company that specialized in creating
>audio for the internet - they were dumping some pretty darned good stuff in
>favor of what I considered to be mostly cheap junk or outright trash. They
>were keeping a few average mic pres, some tiny Behringer mixers, a hand-
>full of RE-20s for voice work, and dumping everything else hardware (except
>volume maximizers) in favor of computer software. The man who walked
>me through the gear was very frank in saying that after the audio levels were
>maximized into oblivion by the program creators (recordists) and then by the
>software, then further mutilated my the encoding and streaming process, that
>he was gambling his reputation and future employment on the fact that most
>end users, as well as those intermediary purchasers of his company's work
>for re-broadcast, would never know the difference. He's still gainfully employed
>there and the changeover was a financial success for his company.
>
>But I'm not certain that I truly understand your question. Your source material
>will still (or should) be the best quality you can make it. MP3 is just a weak file
>compression format for transmission purposes, which is the result of some
>chosen software encoding process performed on your source material. I know
>that I'm not telling you anything you don't know already.

Ah - you're right that I didn't provide enough information. My wife is trying
to record a collection of music quickly now to sell a medium-small group of
admirers and early discoverers, then invest the earnings to make a more
professional-sounding product later. Since money is limited now, we want to
spend it wisely on what will matter most for the first album.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:29:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:io2o21lu15556s37d6m5ol12vr9mbkralm@4ax.com...
> I think it's more a question of, who does it matter to? I don't think
> it's ever mattered much to the average music fan. To audiophile
> geeks, engineers, and musicians it matters a lot.


I dunno. I've always thought about sound quality... even from the
days long before I ever dreamed I'd be in this business. If the sound
quality wasn't good on the records I purchased, the songs and the
performances had best be fantastic or I'd toss the record.

DM
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:29:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> I dunno. I've always thought about sound quality... even from the
> days long before I ever dreamed I'd be in this business. If the sound
> quality wasn't good on the records I purchased, the songs and the
> performances had best be fantastic or I'd toss the record.

David, how do your ears react to 320kbps or (Lame) high
quality VBR (say 190kbps average)?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:02:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <8dmn21t2rnkiv2jdsdttpel0apmaq3ce73@4ax.com> nospam@nospam.nospam writes:

> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
> MP3 world?

Gear hasn't really been a problem. It wouldn't significantly change
the cost of making a modern pop record if the SSL console was pulled
out and replaced with a Mackie. The cost would drop if it was recorded
by the artist him or herself in a spare bedroom on a laptop computer
but they just don't DO that other than to make a demo with a track
that gets squeezed into the final mix so they can write about it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:02:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d0h4f701ck2@enews1.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

> Logan Shaw wrote:
>
> > I am working on building a music PC for home, and I've calculated
> > that my 400 CDs will fit on the 200 GB drive just fine

> Would you consider putting an archive like that on anything
> less than a times two redundancy RAID? How about offsite
> backup? :-)

Perhaps if they were original recordings, but his 400 CDs are his
backup - unless he gets rid of them when he loads up his disk drive.
(or maybe he'll back it up on DVDs <g>)

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:04:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:

> David, how do your ears react to 320kbps or (Lame) high
> quality VBR (say 190kbps average)?
>
>
> Bob


Not trying to answer for David here, but I finally dragged myself
(kicking and screaming) into the MP3 world 2 weeks ago by buying an
iPod. IMO the 128K stuff sounds awful, and it's a shame that ITunes
(and most other DL services I guess) only offer that rate. My Time
Warner Cable modem here in NYC has shown DL speeds of just under 600
KB/sec, so a 128Kb song file DL happens in a few seconds. I'd happily
wait longer for better quality.

Since 128 sounds so bad though, I did a little experimenting with
importing CDs at 320K using Apple's AAC encoder and I'm quite satisfied
with the sound thus far for casual listening purposes. I haven't given
it a serious ear test yet, but IIRC some reputable folks (notably
Steven St Croix from Mix mag) have said they think 320Kb MP3s sound
fine. Given that they use roughly 25% of the disk space of uncompressed
16/44.1 audio, it seems like a pretty good thing.

I'd like to believe that as broadband connectivity proliferates, sites
like iTunes will offer better compression rates. Until then, I'll keep
buying the music I want on CDs and transferring them into the iPod for
portable use. The only 128Kb songs I can envision buying for now would
be for research purposes - the lastest hits for example, where (at
least in the short run) I'm more interested in understanding what made
them hits than I am in owning them. If iTunes offered a 320Kb DL option
it would be a different story, and I'd be spendinmg a lot more money
there.

Speaking of which, does anyone know of music sites where 320Kb stuff is
being sold?

The only other gripe I have with iTunes for now is their extremely
limited back catalog. Most of my favorite old titles from the 60s - 80s
are absent, even classic ones like "Astral Weeks" by Van Morrison or
"The Band" (the brown album). They need to get busy on that score...

Ted Spencer, NYC
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:20:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:35:23 GMT, Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:

>>The storage cost difference between
>>lossy (MP3) and lossless (flac) is $100 or less for a regular person's
>>music collection.

> That's compelling, but how long until the majority of the public starts
> demanding iTunes and their streaming audio to be in FLAC instead of MP3 or
> AAC?

Disregarding for a moment the difference between proprietary formats
and open formats, they don't have to demand it, because iTunes already
includes and option to import using "Apple Lossless Encoder". It's
not the same thing as flac, but it is still lossless.

> Storage is one thing, but some people are still on dial-up Internet, and even
> my expensive Cable Modem broadband (according to the spec) is barely fast
> enough to handle 4 FLAC streams.

True, download speeds will probably not grow as fast as disk capacity
grows, so that is a bit of a problem. But, they will continue growing,
I think. In a sense, increases in disk space will drive the growth
of networks, because increased disk space will mean files (not just
music but all files) will be larger and larger. Therefore, faster
networks will be necessary to transfer those files.

As for dialup, I don't think it's all that significant anyway. For
one thing, if you are using a 56K modem to download, those things
really only operate at about 50kB/s maximum. So, if you are downloading
a mix of 128kB/s and 192kB/s MP3 files, it's going to take you about
triple the time to download as it will to play the files. A 60-minute
album will take 180 minues to download. And since modems are flaky,
you may have to restart in the middle. When you start talking about
wasting 3 hours of your time, it's probably better overall for most
people to just spring for the real album. (Even low-paying jobs these
days pay $10/hr, so it's not worth spending 3 hours to save $20.)

Plus, something like 6 months ago, dialup users became the minority.
Now more than half the home users of the Internet use broadband. The
trend towards broadband is only going to continue. Prices for dialup
are dropping, and internet providers who provide only dialup (like
AOL, for example) are struggling.

> Even that would be discounting IP packet
> overhead and assuming the server can feed all the listeners at those speeds,
> and there are no traffic jams in the routers along the way.

That is a genuine problem. As I said, I think MP3 is fueld by
economics, and the economics of servers are a bit different than
those of cheap desktop machines. So far as I know, none of the
companies that sell music online (iTunes music store, etc., etc.)
even offer lossless as one of the options. As far as I know it
may not even be economically viable for them to do so. So, lossless
has a long way to go in that area. Still, for the really popular
songs, technologies like BitTorrent (not necessarily the actual
BitTorrent, but concepts like it) could fix some of those problems.
Or something else, the point being that the extra costs of
serving lossless data aren't insurmountable.

- Logan
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:20:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Z1VWd.27580$SE2.20764@fe2.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

> As for dialup, I don't think it's all that significant anyway. For
> one thing, if you are using a 56K modem to download, those things
> really only operate at about 50kB/s maximum. So, if you are downloading
> a mix of 128kB/s and 192kB/s MP3 files, it's going to take you about
> triple the time to download as it will to play the files. A 60-minute
> album will take 180 minues to download. And since modems are flaky,
> you may have to restart in the middle. When you start talking about
> wasting 3 hours of your time, it's probably better overall for most
> people to just spring for the real album.

But it's been pretty well established that most pop music listeners
aren't interested in whole albums. Either they don't have the
attention span to listen to the same artist for an hour or they don't
have an hour. So if it takes 10 or 15 minutes to download one song,
it's no great burden as long as you're satisfied with the quality you
get with a 128K compressed MP3 file (and you can find what you want in
that format). I use Total Recorder to record an overnight radio
program on my computer and don't worry too much about quality since
I'll only listen to it once, but I found that I needed to go up to
192K MP3 before the "phasey" sound didn't bother me. It's more
apparent on banjos than on already heavily proceessed rock music.

> That is a genuine problem. As I said, I think MP3 is fueld by
> economics

Yeah - the economincs that puts a computer and broadband Internet
connection on ever desktop. There are a lot of broadcast systems that
use compression, but that's a bit different.

> So far as I know, none of the
> companies that sell music online (iTunes music store, etc., etc.)
> even offer lossless as one of the options.

That's because they're pushing the "portable" applications and people
are buying into it. Load it on your iPod and you can have the music
anywhere. What it to come out of your computer speakers? Just plug the
iPod into the computer.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:33:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:
> Logan Shaw wrote:

>> I am working on building a music PC for home, and I've calculated
>> that my 400 CDs will fit on the 200 GB drive just fine if I use
>> lossless compression. And these days, you can buy a 300 GB drive
>> for $130 -- I just saw one in the store for that price.

> Would you consider putting an archive like that on anything less than a
> times two redundancy RAID? How about offsite backup? :-)

I avoid RAID most of the time because adding untested complexity to a
system is usually a great way to get that system to fail, and RAID is
usually built from code that is not tested very much, and it is
definitely more complex than not using RAID.

But anyway, yes, I am personally planning to do backups (unlike most
home users), and my plan is to basically buy the biggest hard drive
I can afford, put it in another machine, and then copy it over the
network at night while I'm asleep. :-)

- Logan
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:36:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 07:54:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

....

So if I can summarize youre rely, you're saying that what most people are
listening to (who have broadband or a portable player) is 192 Kbps, not 128,
and that's pretty decent, enough for most of what ever mattered to still
matter now.

That said, you seem to be advocating focusing resources first on the room,
next on the mics, next on everything else in no particular order.

Did I get that right?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:02:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:8dmn21t2rnkiv2jdsdttpel0apmaq3ce73@4ax.com...
> So, to target a listener like me, you don't need any fidelity high enough
> to
> matter over a better medium than 128Kbps MP3. If that's the target, what
> pieces of our gear and signal chain still have to be top-notch, and which
> no
> longer matter enough to spend 1000s on a single piece?
>
> I suspect a mic pre still matters plenty, but the mixer? The A/D
> converters?
> Lack of noise from fans, etc. in the room?
>
> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in
> an
> MP3 world?

Of those things you mentioned, fan noise is the most bothersome, and it
should be reduced to inaudibility. If quality sufficient for mp3 recordings
is all you need, everything you have is probably more than adequate.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:32:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:14:01 GMT, "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com>
wrote:

....
>
>Don't assume your audience has tin ears. In the end, doing it right is
>cheaper.

Yes, but only if you ever get the music out <g>. Seriously, we'll be focusing
attention on quality, and we'll do the best we possibly can, but I have to be
pragmatic, too. A $1000 investment could require a several month delay in
release to save up the money. There are people asking for the music now, so
do we gove them what we can, or make them wait until we have better mics and
can figure out a solution to get the noisy PowerMac into different room while
recording vocals?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:12:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:29:26 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:io2o21lu15556s37d6m5ol12vr9mbkralm@4ax.com...
>> I think it's more a question of, who does it matter to? I don't think
>> it's ever mattered much to the average music fan. To audiophile
>> geeks, engineers, and musicians it matters a lot.
>
>
>I dunno. I've always thought about sound quality... even from the
>days long before I ever dreamed I'd be in this business. If the sound
>quality wasn't good on the records I purchased, the songs and the
>performances had best be fantastic or I'd toss the record.

I agree, but I don't think most people are that way.

Al
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:46:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:144p219iq8tdljko75gvfeap9mtpgpgfot@4ax.com
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 07:54:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> So if I can summarize you're saying that what most people
> are listening to (who have broadband or a portable player) is 192
> Kbps, not 128, and that's pretty decent, enough for most of what ever
> mattered to still matter now.

Wat I'msaying is that quality-conscious people who do MP3s are probably
encoding at 192 or higher,
and that 192 done well ain't really all that bad. I think that a 192 Kb MP3
is a good backup for a live session primarily recorded at 44/16.

My portable hard drive player is loaded with true CD quality 16/44 files. My
flash-based players are loaded with 192 KB MP3s.


> That said, you seem to be advocating focusing resources first on the
> room, next on the mics, next on everything else in no particular
> order.

In terms of sound quality the full hierarchy is: the choice of music, the
musicans artistry and their instruments, the room, the mics, and everything
else should follow. That's only because in the 21st century, "everything
else" is often really quite good if only reasonable care is taken.

Can a really good musican overcome a bad instrument, bad music, and a bad
room? I've seen it done but not everybody is that good.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:53:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Uzytkownik "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> napisal w wiadomosci
news:ef3o21lnq8bnk2hnmdhigb4c7o3igugvj6@4ax.com...
>
> Well, I always record at 24-bit, and the difference is clear, but does 96K
> actually gain you anything? The prevailing wisdom on this NG has always
> seemed to be that the difference is not audible, but 96K definitely takes
more
> space on your drive and reduces the number of tracks you can handle at
once.

* It gives you better quality, less noise/distortion when you add hard eq or
other effects - especially
on higher freq.

kisses
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:18:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...
>
>
>>What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
>>MP3 world?
>
>
> Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
> roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.
>
> DM
>
>
LOL! MP3 at 128 can't be THAT bad! It has better dynamic range,
frequency response, way way lower wow and flutter, orders of magnitude
lower distortion, and it's a helluva more compact, too!:) 

The 8-track is not even worth dirtying my foot to step on it and crush
it. I spit on you, 8-track. HA!

CD
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:18:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d0i92b$91n$1@news.interpublic.com>,
Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message...
> >
> >
> >>What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in
> >>an
> >>MP3 world?
> >
> >
> > Remain keenly aware that it's a fad; and in today's technology, represents
> > roughly the equivalent of the 8-track tape in passing.
> >
> > DM
> >
> >
> LOL! MP3 at 128 can't be THAT bad! It has better dynamic range,
> frequency response, way way lower wow and flutter, orders of magnitude
> lower distortion, and it's a helluva more compact, too!:) 

i think you are celebrating the differences between a normal stool
sample sample and diarreah. sure, one's better than the other one but
they both stink.




>
> The 8-track is not even worth dirtying my foot to step on it and crush
> it. I spit on you, 8-track. HA!
>
> CD

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5
"If you are civil to the voluble, they will abuse your patience;
if brusque, your character." - Jonathon Swift
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:25:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steve Jorgensen wrote:

> So, to target a listener like me, you don't need any fidelity high enough to
> matter over a better medium than 128Kbps MP3. If that's the target, what
> pieces of our gear and signal chain still have to be top-notch, and which no
> longer matter enough to spend 1000s on a single piece?

Pursuing the Art of recording is not about what other people think and/or hear,
it's about what you think and/or hear. In your case if you don't care, then it is
a waste your time to pursue.

> What are your opinions about the most productive ways to invest in gear in an
> MP3 world?

It's not an MP3 world. It's a world where consumers listen to recorded material on
whatever they like or think is cool or presents a convenient easy to use playback
solution to them. Currently
that is iPod and similar types of players. In five years it might be cochlear
implants...who knows.

The most productive ways for you to buy gear is to search out the low priced big
featured gear like Behringer and the like. You aren't interested in *investing* by
the nature of your statement. And there isn't much this kind of gear that will be
worth the metal it was stamped out on in 10 years. Hence you have no investment
to be made and you have no worries. If you don't hear it, and don't care, then
don't worry about it.

PapaNate
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:36:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> The mixer is probably going to be a DAW and DAWs can easily outperform
> everything that has even been dreamed about in the analog domain.

Outperform? How so? From a Audio Point of view? From a convenience point of
view? Of how about a screen shot point of view? How about Mic Pre's? How about
the sound of tape recordings? Please clarify how DAW's are going to outperform
analog?

PaoaNate
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:36:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"PapaNate" <nospamagain@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:422C66F3.BF4F91C7@nc.rr.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> The mixer is probably going to be a DAW and DAWs can easily
>> outperform everything that has even been dreamed about in the analog
>> domain.
>
> Outperform? How so?

That 1,000 dB dynamic range stuff and the power of nonlinear editing is hard
to beat.

> From a Audio Point of view?

Technical performance - yes.

>From a convenience point of view?

For recording. Live sound is something else.

> Of how about a screen shot point of view?

Screens are just means to an end. I'm typing this on a 19" 1920 x 1280 LCD
with 600:1 contrast and a DVI connection. This cost me $310 since I was
willing to endure the slings and arrows of taking a floor sample. If I
wanted a *really* good big screen its just a matter of money.

> How about Mic Pre's?

Good ones are nice. I was doing some live recording with a NT4 versus a
crossed pair of OM6s this weekend. Both preamps were box-stock SX202s. A
quiet recording with the NT4 was virtually assured with any reasonable
preamp given their relatively high output. I could be wrong, but I would
have expected audible hiss if I tried the same thing with the OM6s and a
Mackie SR32.

> How about the sound of tape recordings?

It's EFX.

>Please clarify how DAW's are going to outperform analog?

To me the major strength of a DAW is low cost, high technical performance,
and mixing and editing power, given that you're not working in real time.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:01:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rocha <therealroach@rogers.com> wrote:
>I think a lot of peoples' will replies will be to the effect of this:
>A photo copy of a picture taken with a 2000 dollar camera is still going
>to look better than a photo copy of a picture taken with a 10 dollar
>disposable.

Yes, but if it's a nude picture of a famous celebrity, the two pictures will
sell equally well, regardless of image quality.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:01:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> That 1,000 dB dynamic range stuff and the power of nonlinear editing is hard
> to beat.

Sure is...and it's impossible to hear what that is doing too. Tape sounds great,
and most machines won't even come close to digital's dynamic range. But then
again it doesn't matter.

BTW to be clear, I am a DAW based studio. Nary a tape deck is in site. And I am
just about to move to a mixer-less setup...that is if I can figure out the
routing issues.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:01:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"PapaNate" <nospamagain@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:422C88EA.B05E3489@nc.rr.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>> That 1,000 dB dynamic range stuff and the power of nonlinear editing
>> is hard to beat.
>
> Sure is...and it's impossible to hear what that is doing too.

Please clarify.

>Tape sounds great, and most machines won't even come close to digital's
> dynamic range. But then again it doesn't matter.

Digital is capable of audibly facsimile reproduction. Not even one
generation of the best analog tape can do that.

> BTW to be clear, I am a DAW based studio. Nary a tape deck is in
> site. And I am just about to move to a mixer-less setup...that is if
> I can figure out the routing issues.

Routing issues?
March 7, 2005 9:08:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 3/7/05 3:21 AM, in article ef3o21lnq8bnk2hnmdhigb4c7o3igugvj6@4ax.com,
"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

>
> Well, I always record at 24-bit, and the difference is clear, but does 96K
> actually gain you anything? The prevailing wisdom on this NG has always
> seemed to be that the difference is not audible, but 96K definitely takes more
> space on your drive and reduces the number of tracks you can handle at once.

I think the 44/16 release format is DANDY as a populist HiFi thing. The
bang-for-buck is right, still. Better is great but how much Better is
MARRIED WITH CHILDREN in HDTV? Brittany in 24/88 and 5.2?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:08:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:08:44 GMT, John <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 3/7/05 3:21 AM, in article ef3o21lnq8bnk2hnmdhigb4c7o3igugvj6@4ax.com,
>"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, I always record at 24-bit, and the difference is clear, but does 96K
>> actually gain you anything? The prevailing wisdom on this NG has always
>> seemed to be that the difference is not audible, but 96K definitely takes more
>> space on your drive and reduces the number of tracks you can handle at once.
>
>I think the 44/16 release format is DANDY as a populist HiFi thing. The
>bang-for-buck is right, still. Better is great but how much Better is
>MARRIED WITH CHILDREN in HDTV? Brittany in 24/88 and 5.2?
>

I thought we were talking about 24/96 track recording, not distribution
format.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:09:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The answer is... Fidelity -- that is, accuracy to live, unamplified sound -- has
_never_ mattered to the average listener. All they want is something that
pleases them. Ditto for most performers, producers, etc.

From a practical point of view, you never know what's down the pike. It seems to
me that the higher the absolute quality of your original recordings, the more
likely you are to be able to take advantage of future developments. If someone
comes up with a 64kbs codec that's indistinguishable from 16/44.1, you'll regret
not having made the best recordings you could.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:41:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <j97p21hcdu909peqrn3fmemohkeirae32g@4ax.com> nospam@nospam.nospam writes:

> Seriously, we'll be focusing
> attention on quality, and we'll do the best we possibly can, but I have to be
> pragmatic, too. A $1000 investment could require a several month delay in
> release to save up the money. There are people asking for the music now, so
> do we gove them what we can, or make them wait until we have better mics and
> can figure out a solution to get the noisy PowerMac into different room while
> recording vocals?

You can rent better mics, and you can get a longer mic cable or throw
a blanket over the computer. What's the REAL problem here?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
March 7, 2005 10:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 3/7/05 1:17 PM, in article vk6p21lsauprjfsabhgjena4co4726ptuc@4ax.com,
"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

>> I think the 44/16 release format is DANDY as a populist HiFi thing. The
>> bang-for-buck is right, still. Better is great but how much Better is
>> MARRIED WITH CHILDREN in HDTV? Brittany in 24/88 and 5.2?
>>
>
> I thought we were talking about 24/96 track recording, not distribution
> format.

I'll go out on that limb willingly. Sure Morer-is-betterer but I'll take a
well-produced album competantly tracked at dithered 16/44, and mixed to
that, over The Usual delivered with inaudible accuracy and detail.
If the even HALF the amount of Severe Kneejerk Concern spent regularly on
Wide/Deep Format Worries was shuffled over to writing/arranging/recording
basics the record would be TONS better in every way. Stunning sounding
records were cut live to 1/4" 3-track at 7.5 or 15 ips. Gimme TALENT FIRST
and then just 30-15kHz and a 70dB noise floor and the music will shine.
Hiss isn't the enemy.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:14:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John" <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BE52125F.28DC%ssconmag1@verizon.net...
> On 3/7/05 1:17 PM, in article vk6p21lsauprjfsabhgjena4co4726ptuc@4ax.com,
> "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
> >> I think the 44/16 release format is DANDY as a populist HiFi thing. The
> >> bang-for-buck is right, still. Better is great but how much Better is
> >> MARRIED WITH CHILDREN in HDTV? Brittany in 24/88 and 5.2?
> >>
> >
> > I thought we were talking about 24/96 track recording, not distribution
> > format.
>
> I'll go out on that limb willingly. Sure Morer-is-betterer but I'll take a
> well-produced album competantly tracked at dithered 16/44, and mixed to
> that, over The Usual delivered with inaudible accuracy and detail.
> If the even HALF the amount of Severe Kneejerk Concern spent regularly on
> Wide/Deep Format Worries was shuffled over to writing/arranging/recording
> basics the record would be TONS better in every way. Stunning sounding
> records were cut live to 1/4" 3-track at 7.5 or 15 ips. Gimme TALENT
FIRST
> and then just 30-15kHz and a 70dB noise floor and the music will shine.
> Hiss isn't the enemy.
>

ya but while i'm waiting for the talent to show up, i might as well figure
out how to get the best detail for mixing (as close to analog as possible
is, for me, 24/96).

i also see some misunderstanding in this thread. a recording mixed at 24/96
and then dithered to 16/44.1 for the cd is different than something
originally recorded and mixed as 16/44.1.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:14:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

greggery peccary wrote:

> i also see some misunderstanding in this thread. a recording mixed at 24/96
> and then dithered to 16/44.1 for the cd is different than something
> originally recorded and mixed as 16/44.1.

Why? 16 bit tracks are mixed and processed at higher numbers of bits
internal to whatever system is being used, usually 24 or 32 bit. Perhaps
I misunderstand something? - not sure. I've been recording at 16/44.1
for years, mixing through an 02R which processes at 32 bits finally
outputting at 16 bits. I don't hear any degradation.

I have been puzzled for a long time about the hoopla over 24 bits. I
can't hear the difference to be honest, and I've been wondering if there
is something wrong with my ears! But I don't think there is. Maybe if I
was recording solo violin in a reverberant space I would notice, but not
for regular old pop music. Maybe your ears are just better than mine or
you are actually recording Bach partitas.

I'm about to buy a Fostex 2424LV (a no brainer at $1100) for tracking
purposes, and plan to track at 16/44.1.

-Naren
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:45:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:6s3o219rm29ou09hsm3jeftc5i725239nr@4ax.com...

> Ah - you're right that I didn't provide enough information. My wife is trying
> to record a collection of music quickly now to sell a medium-small group of
> admirers and early discoverers, then invest the earnings to make a more
> professional-sounding product later. Since money is limited now, we want to
> spend it wisely on what will matter most for the first album.


Are you planning on doing it at home?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:45:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:j97p21hcdu909peqrn3fmemohkeirae32g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:14:01 GMT, "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> >Don't assume your audience has tin ears. In the end, doing it right is
> >cheaper.
>
> Yes, but only if you ever get the music out <g>. Seriously, we'll be focusing
> attention on quality, and we'll do the best we possibly can, but I have to be
> pragmatic, too. A $1000 investment could require a several month delay in
> release to save up the money. There are people asking for the music now, so
> do we gove them what we can, or make them wait until we have better mics and
> can figure out a solution to get the noisy PowerMac into different room while
> recording vocals?

$1000 bucks is a modest amount. If people are actually 'demanding' the music
now, perhaps encouraging an advance investment on their part, to help facilitate
the recording, would be a doable approach. I've definitely seen this done with
success in the past.

DM
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:49:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:j97p21hcdu909peqrn3fmemohkeirae32g@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:14:01 GMT, "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com>

> >Don't assume your audience has tin ears. In the end, doing it right is
> >cheaper.

> There are people asking for the music now, so
> do we gove them what we can, or make them wait until we have better mics and
> can figure out a solution to get the noisy PowerMac into different room while
> recording vocals?


For about $75 you can build an insulated box with a quiet fan to cover the Mac
with while you're doing vocals. You can also consider renting higher quality
mics for a couple of days. I'd favor just borrowing an audio snake and getting
the whole "control room" scenario moved away from the recording area.

If your expenses start to approach an anticipated $1000.... you might just
consider finding a modest studio to get the job done.

DM
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:vk6p21lsauprjfsabhgjena4co4726ptuc@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:08:44 GMT, John <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On 3/7/05 3:21 AM, in article ef3o21lnq8bnk2hnmdhigb4c7o3igugvj6@4ax.com,
> >"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Well, I always record at 24-bit, and the difference is clear, but does 96K
> >> actually gain you anything? The prevailing wisdom on this NG has always
> >> seemed to be that the difference is not audible, but 96K definitely takes more
> >> space on your drive and reduces the number of tracks you can handle at once.
> >
> >I think the 44/16 release format is DANDY as a populist HiFi thing. The
> >bang-for-buck is right, still. Better is great but how much Better is
> >MARRIED WITH CHILDREN in HDTV? Brittany in 24/88 and 5.2?
> >
>
> I thought we were talking about 24/96 track recording, not distribution
> format.

If you have the gear to process on the way to the storage medium, or
otherwise record the material in such a way that very little manipulation
in the digital domain is necessary, then neither is the 24/96 recording
format. I have gone through practically every version of Sound Forge
and CD Architect since their inception, and I still put *everything* in the
computer for final 2-track editing at 16 / 44.1.... but in my case 92% of
all processing has already been completed. If you get your tracks
recorded well, there should be little to do in the 'puter thus the 'numbers'
game generally won't be a factor. The mics you use and the room you
record in, and of course how well you record, will have much more of an
impact than the sample rate or the bit depth.

DM
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:51:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message news:D 0h55e01d2j@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
> > I dunno. I've always thought about sound quality... even from the
> > days long before I ever dreamed I'd be in this business. If the sound
> > quality wasn't good on the records I purchased, the songs and the
> > performances had best be fantastic or I'd toss the record.
>
> David, how do your ears react to 320kbps or (Lame) high
> quality VBR (say 190kbps average)?


I'm of course interested in what you're getting at.

Since I don't download anything that isn't part of my work, and all of
the encoding that I do is CBR and not VBR, I can't comment on the
latter.... but 320kbps Lame is quite good... *very* good AAMoF, at
least to my ears.

( Isn't this Mac-pod 'lossless' encoding thing really just 192kbps ?)

DM
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:51:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:JYCdnZ7Kmoxh8rHfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> "PapaNate" <nospamagain@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:422C66F3.BF4F91C7@nc.rr.com

> > Outperform? How so?

> That 1,000 dB dynamic range stuff...


Oh, Arny.... stop it. ;-)
!