Does data compression really significantly matter?

[RCAGuy05]

I'm refering to my BR864, I've got a 1 grand budget to get into some good pres/boards/compressor/mics and what not. But now I'm wondering if maybe I should focus a different recording medium(plan to get into computers in the year 2009, no point in chasing the curve). I'm not even really talking about 24 bit vs. 16 bit(boss is 16bit), but I'd like to know does data compression really matter ultimately?
Is there any noticable difference between a 16 bit 44.1(or also yes 24 bit 44.1 khz uncompressed) uncompressed and 16 bit 44.1 data compressed recording quality. Wouldn't mic techniques, level setting, propper EQ, great pre's, actual compression used tastefully, harmonious musical performance on great sounding insturments, and heartfelt music totally render any differences irrelevant, if they are really there at all?
This board is like a diamond to me, cutting through any bull comission driven techs at music stores would possibly give me.

 

[LemonTree]

I've got a 1 grand budget to get into some good pres/boards/compressor/mics and what not.


Wouldn't mic techniques, level setting, propper EQ, great pre's, actual compression used tastefully, harmonious musical performance on great sounding insturments, and heartfelt music totally render any differences irrelevant, if they are really there at all?

Mic technique, level setting, propper EQ, great pre's, tastefull compression and what not will all help, but a 1 grand budget won't if you're looking for good pre's, boards, compressors and mics.

I started with a tascam prota 01 4 track cassette recorder and got the itch. About £17,000 later I'm still adding to my setup as the gear lust takes hold. I remember about 20 years ago wanting to buy a PA for my band at the time and thinking a few hundred quid would get the job done.....a few hundred quid wouldn't have covered the cables.

Don't be put off, you're using the board. Research EVERYTHING before you buy ANYTHING. Cross reference all your information and finaly go to your local store and try before you buy if you can, because if you buy cheap you almost certainly always buy twice.

Good luck

 

[easychair]

Yes, it definitely matters. Data compression is a loss of data, which is then reconstructed using an algorithm. Algorithm is a fancy way of saying "guess".

They have gotten better, but the difference is instantly noticeable if you play a song recorded with the two formats one after the other.

As to your other question, skills, gear, and performance matter as well, but if all else is equal, the differences in the end product will be obvious.

I do a lot of live to 2-track recording, and until recently my medium was a minidisc player set to it's highest quality level. I got a Masterlink, and the difference is night and day, recording uncompressed at 16/44.1 vs. the minidisc.

 

[DigitMus]

So of that difference though could be superior A/D/A's and clock related as opposed to CD vs minidisc quality.

Not saying that there isn't a difference, and that the difference isn't noticeable, just that converters and clocks make a pretty big difference too!

I am better than an Apogee at 16/44.1 compared to your Masterlink at 16/44.1 would net a noticeable difference in sound quality!

I doubt the difference between the converters in the Masterlink (which are considered unusable by a large segment of the pro recording community) and whatever he was using before can make up for the enormous difference that (lossy) data compression makes.

Bottom line - uncompressed 16bit 44.1khz audio is superior, even with better conversion/clocking. If the original poster's reason for using data compressed audio is monetary, an ADAT XT can be had for under $200 if he looks around.