Blues...

The original Blade encoder is circa 98? There may be a few people who have made modifications to it, but the original algorithms are pretty much the same. There has been huge advances in mp3 style codecs, not to mention all the others that are out there thanks to mostly russian enthusiasts.

Blade is being kept alive by people who just refuse to let it go :)
 
TheRealWaldo said:
I was refering to using an mp3 as a source sample. The quality DOES degrade (that's why they call it lossey) when you use the mp3 as a source, and then re-encode it.
Click to expand...

Erm...

Raise your hand if you thought this was what I was talking about.

Anybody...

Anybody...

Beuller?

Good, didn't think so.

There HAVE been huge advances in reducing artifacts, yes. But that comes at a cost.

I personally have yet to hear any mp3 encoder that doesn't color the sound, although I haven't heard of this lossless mp3 compression before.
 
There is NO SUCH THING as Lossless mp3 compression. The mp3 algorithm is lossey by nature, and never will change. If they change the algorithm, it's no longer mp3!

Lossless compression comes in many forms, all very different from mp3. Take the time and read the link I sent you, you'll find some very good codecs (all free). And as far as this 'cost' you are talking about, the only cost I see is time, as in doing your research :) And there is even some links to some very good comparison sites, some of which contain frequency analysis, loss charts, encode times, etc., etc..

Hell, you might even find a few codecs that I wrote.

And I certainly hope you are not disagreeing with me when I stated that the quality degrades if you take an .mp3 and re-encode it.

Try it some time, put it up to a spectrum analyzer, encode it, play it back, re-encode, play it back, re-encode, etc.. Watch as the lows slowly fade away, the highs trim off, and then suddenly, you get the occasional static burst in the center spectrum, and that's all. That IS after all, why mp3 is a lossey codec.... Because every time you encode with it, you LOSE something :)

If you are using individual mp3's as tracks, and re-mix the tracks, then re-encode the final, you are GUARUNTEED to lose quality in one swing (noticable to most sound guys too)!

W.
 
Ogg's been around a long, long time now. It's unfortunate that it hasn't caught on as much as it's worth.

At high bit-rates, it kicks some ass :) But, alas, there is little support for things like streaming, and decent perl modules for reading formats for web-based applications etc...

Ice-cast has support for them through it's live broadcast aps, but nothing yet that I have found for on-demand...

Anyways, it's slowly growing. Not sure it'll be the next mp3, the algorithm just isn't clean enough for low-bitrate encodes. It won't matter once everybody out there is on the high-bandwidth plane, but until then!

It sounds like you are into keeping up with this stuff, even if you don't know all of it :) Keep me informed on any new findings you trip over, I'm always looking for options.

W.
 
And I certainly hope you are not disagreeing with me when I stated that the quality degrades if you take an .mp3 and re-encode it.
Click to expand...

Again I ask, did I mention using mp3s for this reason?

Actually, you brought this up. I never once mentioned it. The phrase I used was "listen to". I don't know what this has to do with decoding and re-encoding an mp3.

There is NO SUCH THING as Lossless mp3 compression
Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. Looking back, I see now that you didn't specifically say "mp3".

And as far as this 'cost' you are talking about, the only cost I see is time, as in doing your research
Click to expand...

That's only mildly insulting.

The "cost" I was referring to, in terms of mp3 encoders, is that although encoders such as LAME are very nice, you sacrifice tonal purity to get rid of artifacts. Classical mp3s often sound pretty gross for this reason.

Although this new archival/playback format sounds interesting, and I'll probably check it out sometime, a format that isn't widely used or easily distributable is only of so much use. When space is no issue, I'm just going to stick with the original .wav.
 
Didn't mean to be insulting, just wanted to be clear.... I assumed by cost you meant 'pay for'... Possibly using 'at a loss' or 'sacrifice' would have been more clear...

As far as :

> Again I ask, did I mention using mp3s for this reason?

You stated you use blade high-bitrate mp3 for archiving.... I've never archived something and not used it again, remixed it, added something to it, used a sample from it... I just assumed you were the same as me!

Lossless codecs are nothing new, been around longer than mp3, voc, etc.... In fact, there was lossless codecs available for good old VIC's! .WAV is even an example of a lossless codec! (before .wav, file formats were RAW data, and often very, very large) They are very widely available, and very commonly used, you'd be amazed :)

Definately check out some of the codecs on that list I made, and give them a shot.

You are right though, when space doesn't matter, it is best to use good ol' .wav :)

W.
 
What an awesome recording!

I believe I used those same words to describe the last song I listen to you guys record! Absolutely amazing job of tracking here!

Im listenining to this on some harman kardons that came with the Dell system at work and they had sounded like shit on all the mp3,s ive listen to up until now..

If I remember correctly you guys were tracking at 96/24..is that correct? In any case, If you would I would appreciate it if you would share your set up and how u went about tracking this..do you use compression at all while tracking..what gear?..what mulit tracker...a DAW?

Also..if you were to give this to 12 different mix engineers they would all come up with 12 different mixes that would all do just fine...it would simply be a matter of taste..

Great work! looking forward to your response!
 
Wow! Thanx for the all the compliments, elbenj!!! :)

I'll be glad to tell you what we used!

The drums were mic'd with four SM57's and a single AKG C3000 overhead... SM57's lined straight in, C3000 through a MindPrint Envoice.
(Sonor drums)

The bass cabinet was mic'd with one SM57... lined straight in.
(Fender Precision bass, I forgot what type of amp was used)

The guitar amp was mic'd with one SM57... lined straight in.
(Fender Strat and a Fender Twin Reverb)

Keyboards were lined in direct.
(Korg Trinity, I believe)

Harmonica was recorded in the vocal booth with an AKG C3000, which was run through a MindPrint Envoice.
(Hohner harmonica)

Vocals were recorded in the booth.... again, the C3000 through the Envoice.

Okay, so I got alot of mileage out of that mic. ;)

The drums, bass, and rhythm guitar were recorded simultaneously.

The keyboards and harmonica were recorded at the same time after that. Then the vocals, followed by the lead guitar.

I used Monster cables for everything.

The song was recorded on an Akai DPS-16, and then mixed down to a Tascam CDRW 700.

There's no compression on the whole mix, but we used a little on the Envoice (vocals and harmonica) while recording.

That's about it. No fancy equipment. We just try to keep our recordings as clean as possible.

The fact that these guys are all "old pro's" at playing the Blues was a real plus. They had great tone and feel for the Blues sound, so that made things easier for my partner and I.

I'm glad you enjoyed the song.. Thanx again! :)

Buck
 
O K

I wasnt at all familiar with the Akai unit you spoke of..so had to check up on it. Am I correct in saying that this unit is sorta in the Roland 1680 type group of recorders?..Except this piece is capapble of recording at 96/24..(not sure that the Roland can do that or not)???

If so..it just makes another good case for recorders of this type..

Are you tracking at 96/24? If not what rates are you using..

Again, excellent work..very inspiring :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top