Are we still stuck with mp3?

lykwydchykyn said:
I don't agree with this mentality. Maybe the teenagers downloading Jessica Simpson tunes don't care about sound quality, but if I had a demographic to speak of I would tend to think they would care about sound quality. Just because the average person doesn't know engineering jargon and can't accurately articulate what they're hearing doesn't mean they can't tell you when something sounds like crap and when it doesn't. Sure, they may not know when we're talking 48 kHz recording vs 96 kHz recording, or DVDa vs CD, but at 64 kbps, there is a very big difference in quality between ogg and mp3.

And of course, like I said, I don't really care that much about promoting my music; or more to the point, I'm realistic about how many people are really interested in hearing it. I guess if I was really trying to push (like if I ever release a CD), I would offer mp3 as well. That much has been established.
Click to expand...

You want the most people possible to hear your music, right? If that's the case, mp3 is the way to go.

As for quality, the fact that mp3 isn't perfect is an incentive for people to purchase a CD.
 
David Hooper said:
You want the most people possible to hear your music, right? If that's the case, mp3 is the way to go.
Click to expand...
True... I probably should add mp3. Eventually I will.

As for quality, the fact that mp3 isn't perfect is an incentive for people to purchase a CD.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, but to play devil's advocate, do you want someone's first impression of you to be some cruddy, mangled lofi mp3?
 
For a little extra effort you can add mp3 -and- ogg, offering the listener the choice. MP3 is easily converted to wav, so a much higher quality version can be obtained at the listener's end if desired. (OK, so it's only a conversion of the compressed mp3, but the quality is still superior). Seriously - host mp3 if not both.
 
Davenhurst said:
For a little extra effort you can add mp3 -and- ogg, offering the listener the choice. MP3 is easily converted to wav, so a much higher quality version can be obtained at the listener's end if desired. (OK, so it's only a conversion of the compressed mp3, but the quality is still superior). Seriously - host mp3 if not both.
Click to expand...

I probably would add mp3 at some point as I said.
Converting ogg to wav shouldn't be any harder than converting mp3 to wav, provided you have a player. I don't know why you would say it sounds better, that's not possible. It's lossy compression; once what's lost is lost, it's lost. There's no retreiving it, no matter what you convert it to.
 
Who did your mastering?

mp3, i know you lose alot of quality. i master my own stuff and i have come to find out you have to master two different ways. one for wave and one for mp3's. mastering compression on wave and none on mp3's. mp3's compress the hell out of a wave and you lose some life in the recording. this will help more than ya think. also bring down your overall highs on your mp3 mix. thats what i did. it works!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top