I think this post is valid to be in the mp3 clinic... you should too! (after reading)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mixmkr
  • Start date Start date
mixmkr

mixmkr

we don't need rest!!
can you guys tell if someone records at 20 bit...16 bit... 44.1...24/96....whatever? do you feel there are people that very obviously record at 24/44.1 ...or do you feel that if you had to guess, you would just be guessing on the mp3's posted here in general? Or to even go so far....do you think the quality of the mp3's here just suck in general, you WOULDN'T be able to hear it...or the mp3 encoding mucks it up?

My personal observation, I can't hear the differences in the MAJOR MAJORITY of posts. Possibly because you don't know how it sounded at the microphone..?

I know that a couple of people are definately doing 24/44.1...and I'd bet that people with newer equipment would be too...as that's about all that's on the market. Of the "final" results of the many posted here, I don't think it is an issue.

I'd like to hear why I am wrong.


and...call Slucie a dink if you think this post should HAVE TO have a mp3 in it!! (easy now boy..set down YOUR axe:p )

or.... get on Chad's shit list!:eek:
 
I'm all for conversational posts here in the clinic, but this one has been kinda done to death on every forum on the web.

One of the more informed discussions occured recently at the Massenberg forum. Here's the thread:

http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005374


My 2 cents: with the crappy monitors most of us here are listening on, and the fact that we're listening to mp3s... anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference is full of dookie.

Chris
 
I have the HD24 clocked with the Lucid at 44.1 and when I go to 48k I just can't hear a difference.
 
I'm a dink.

:)

I record 24/44.1 mostly because I'm never sure ultimately what I'll be doing with the media. I have the option, so why not use it. But I'm not really sure how much difference it makes once I compress it to a 192k MP3. I'd guess that good mics and pres are probably more important than bitrate. But when I got to print a CD, I have a feeling that sampling at 24bits will pay off for me. I'm not quite sure that recording at 96khz is necessary. My cats might appreciate it and all though, as they seem to not enoy the overall dullness of my 44.1 mixes. But my brain gets tired when I read too much of this sort of debate, therefor I'm unreliable. I just like cool guitar chords.

There, I used the word "mp3"...good enough. :)
 
well...three good replies...and kinda what I wanted to hear too.

sorry about the "bit wars" topic here. I just wanted to use THESE MP3's in the clinic as specific examples. Not what people hear on their great stereos at home with the mondo speakers off home brew DVD's...(anyone doing that yet?)
 
I can make a decent recording on a 16-bit card professionals would like to take a dump on (my creative Audigy)....but I can also assure you I can make a hissy & crackling recording on a 24bit/96Khz high quality card. And I haven't even talked about encoding yet.

Both my cats told me to record at 16 bit/48Khz. My wife doesn't care about these things. I tend to think of her as the only sane one in our family.

[spam]
Now playing: Dobro's album...the CD quality is really a delight! (the album itself too).
[/spam]
 
24/44.1


I've done some non scientific tests and the khz number doesnt matter to me, but the 24 bit compared to 16 makes a noticeable difference to my ears..

16/44.1 is good enough though if you lack the resources..
 
My brother recorded his first album at 8/22Hz :eek: (ancient mac)

Still listen to it though....sometimes I even like the gritty sound.
 
Back
Top