MP3's versus Wav file format for burning CD's???

  • Thread starter Thread starter bloozguy
  • Start date Start date
Paul - First of all, if you have the capability, then by all means you should record at 24 bits.

As for sample rates, I would eliiminate 48 kHz as a choice for reasons mentioned earlier. The choice between 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz is a trade-off. Recording at 96 kHz will chew up large quantities of hard disk space. You need to decide for yourself whether the increase in quality is worth the extra hard disk space.

Personally I record at 44.1 and 24 bit. However, I have never recorded at 96 kHz (although I have the capability). I have heard people on this bbs rave about the quality at 96kHz, but I still wonder whether you can really translate this benefit to CD since you ultimately have to downsample to 44.1.

I guess what I'm telling you is that I have no experience recording at 96 kHz, so in that sense I'm the wrong guy to ask. Normally I would say go for it, but you need to weigh the gain against the cost in extra disk space, and also whether you can actually hear the difference once you've burned it to CD.
 
dachay, I can appreciate what you are saying. Now we get to the subjective stuff! In the Mixing/mastering forum there was ructions when this issue came up. It borders on religion for some folk. So I guess its a matter of personal choice at the end of the day? That and the size of your equipment:p

Thanks again for taking the time to answer all my questions.
 
Paul 881

You're right! It is easy! Free and easy. That's hard to beat. Thank you so much.
 
Why Wavelab?

Dachay, you said you used WaveLab for DIY mastering. I searched and found the website, that is one expensive piece of software gear! So what does it do, benefits and all that, for the money?
 
I use it as a wave editor, mastering program, and also as a CD burning program - so it's kind of a 3 in 1 package for me. It's not that you can't do most of the same things in other ways, it's just that I find them easier to do in Wavelab. And it does have some tools you won't find in Sonar (dc offset removal, rms and peak volume analysis, etc) and it uses either VST or DirectX plugins. You can probaly pick it up for $300.00 or so it you shop around (version 3.0, anyway - 4.0 looks like it's a bit more expensive).

There is another program called Sound Forge that has many similar features to Wavelab. I've heard people have been able to find SF for as low as $99.00 at times. I personally prefer Wavelab, but if you come across SF for $99 you wouldn't be ill advised to make the investment.
 
Wavelab 4.0 is $560 here in the uk and soundforge 5.0 is available as a download for $360.

I will be coming to the US this year so will have a shopping list with me;)

I will do some more research first, but is wavelab included in Sonar? I only have HS2002 and wavelab is ghosted out under Tools.
 
Shop around.

I was able to find a listing for Sound Forge for $170.00 in just a couple of minutes (http://store.yahoo.com/needsoftware/d90164.html ). Apparently that price is only available to schools or students, but I imagine you can figure a way around that one (e.g., have your kid buy it).

I also think one of the internet dept stores (buy.com or bestbuy.com) periodically runs a special on SF with very cheap prices.

There is also a scaled down version of SF called SF XP. I've never used it, so I don't know what the differences are - but it's very cheap (~ $69). There is a review of it on this bbs: https://homerecording.com/sound_forge.html

BTW, Wavelab is not supplied with Sonar. And since it's mfg'd by Steinberg (Cubase), I doubt it ever will be. Don't know why it's greyed out on your tools menu. Maybe you installed the demo at some point?
 
Thanks for the info, I'll check out the links. Thanks again dachay.

Curious about wavelab, to my knowledge, I have never installed it. There are also strange fx listed in my HS2002 that I cannot pin down too. Useful though...and they work!

I have searched my program list and exe listings and cannot see where these have come from.

A long long time ago, I did have a demo cubase but I've had a new hard disk since then.

Hmmm...maybe its the xfiles?
 
Hmm, there are a number of arguments that always crop up in threads like these and I don't wish to add to them but, there are some things I think are worth mentioning:

Before you just decide to record everything at 24 bit do some blindfold tests on yourself recording things at both 16 and 24 and make sure there's an actual difference in the sound. Now I know that on paper 24 looks to be better but I don't think anyone could hear the difference myself. There are drawbacks to recording at 24 bits. The biggest is that many software muti-track programs will limit the number of tracks you have available to 24 when recording in 24 bit mode. Can you make it on 24 tracks? Probably more than enough most of the time but make sure before you start. Second, even if your software will allow for more than 24 tracks at 24 bit you'll find that you've used an incredible amount of system resources before you even reach 16 tracks. It takes a heck of a puter to take advantage of 24 bit recording. And personally I just don't think any human could possibly hear the difference.

Now there's something else some of us have been doing as of late that can help more than recording at 24 bit. We do all our tracking at 16/44.1 Then we take our mixdown wave and up it to 24/88.2 before making changes to it. The reasoning here is that most of the destructive editing you do is on the final mixdown stereo waves, not the multi-track waves. With 24 bits you can make as many destructive edits as you like and never hear a degradation in sound on your mixdown masters. Then dither back to 16/44.1 when you're done. And dithering can actually improve the sound sometimes believe it or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I won't go into detail about the MP3 versus wave thing but to my ears the only time I can hear any difference between a 128k MP3 and the wave it came from is if it's an old tune with a lot of hiss present. MP3 does funky things to tape hiss and makes it kind of swirly sounding. But newer hiss free recordings sound fine to me in MP3 format.

As far as putting them on CD, I've never had a CD player that could play MP3 encoded CD's. They're brand new on the market and I just haven't gotten one yet. I think this notion of changing the MP3 to Redbook standard waves on the CD is incorrect though. There would be no benefit to recording MP3's on a CD if it was going to create a file just as big as a wave so I can't imagine that it would get changed to Redbook format when doing this. The whole idea behind putting MP3's on a CD was so you could fill a single CD with over a hundred songs because of the smaller format. A 128k MP3 may not always sound quite as good as the wave it came from but for the vast majority of people out there it's good enough. (I'm perfectly happy listening to a cassette most of the time. It's just not that big a deal especially in a car where the fidelity goes right out the window as soon as you crack it anyway.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe somebody here knows more about this than me but from what I understand there are some CD burners made (like Yamaha for instance) that are better for burning music files on than other CD burners. Apparently the ones that are aimed at music use will burn a deeper groove for this. I've noticed that my old Acer CDRW will burn music files okay but that it won't be long until they start to skip. Apparently this is because the Acer was primarilly meant to be used for burning raw data rather than music. So if you want to burn music CD's, better to find a burner made for doing that. I think Sony, Phillps, and Yamaha units are more music file capatable than many other brands. I don't know that much about it though.
 
Dachay, its not WaveLab thats ghosted out, its creatives WaveStudio, for my s/blaster. Its ghosted cos I shot it :D Invasive little tyke! Sorry for the mis-information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Windowman, thanks for your in depth post. When I suggested on the mixing/mastering forum that maybe people couldn't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recording, I got flamed to hell and back (I must say that that forum and the recording techniques forum have a lot of testosterone enriched postings;) )

I will be getting a Delta 66 soundcard though, I feel that is the direction I have to go, especially for the multi input and spdif input capability to hook up to my M series soundcraft mixer. The 24 bit capability is secondary to that really. I am looking forward to comparing the two together though . You are certainly not the first to suggest that the differences are indiscernible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I understand what you are saying about quality of CDR's, but one thing that I was curious of is how do you hook external CDR's like the Phillips/Sony et al up to your DAW. And how do you get to burn to them?
 
I've never owned one but I would guess that most people who have external CD burners hook them up through the spdf in/out on their soundcards. Even SB Lives have those. I wasn't suggesting that you need an external burner though. Yamaha and others make standard CDRW's to go in your box that are still geared toward burning the deeper grooves that are needed for music CD's. I couldn't tell you any specific models to look for though. Maybe someone else here knows more about the specifics of it than me. If you're really interested though there's a great forum strictly about CDRW issues here:

http://www.cdrom-guide.com

Click on the forum link to the left. You'll definately find someone there that can answer any question you have concerning CDRW issues. There's as much to burning good CDs as there is to making good multi-track recordings though. These guys have all kinds of neat little tricks to get the most out of your burner. And there are a bunch of compatibility issues with soundcards, drivers, and CDRW's etc.

Seems like we never stop learning with all this computer sound stuff. It's enough to make you want to go back to track-bouncing and razor-blade editing on your old Teac Reel to Reel....
 
Dachay/AlChuck/ChuckU,

Well today was the day! I got myself the Delta 66 Omni studio, plugged it all in and got it working first time, alongside my s/blaster which I will use for soundfonts only. I have plugged my omni monitor outputs to the front panel of the s/blaster Live! currently so I can use the crummy computer speakers that plug into the s/blaster card as my monitors. (I had a demo of the new vr4 active monitors yesterday....I feel another upgrade coming on;) )

Anyway, changed to 24 bit 44k1 without any hassle, plays back all my legacy 16 bit files, midi files etc clear as a bell.

Also records audio and s/blaster soundfonts perfectly as well.

So all is Joy.

(No doubt you'll remember that when in a few days/weeks/months time I'm posting with reports of hassles and extreme hair loss.)
 
Last edited:
Hey, Paul. The only thing worse than a Gear Slut is a Gear Slut who brags about it. :)

Good luck with the new stuff and try and hide the woodie from your wife. She'll think you've got a girl on the side, since she certainly won't understand that you can be sexually aroused by 24 bit A/D converters.
 
The only thing worse than a Gear Slut is a Gear Slut who brags about it.
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged!!!

After working hard over the past two years to upgrade this and upgrade that, learning how to do this and how to do that, there comes a time when you have a step change in your gear and you have to let the world know. Anyway, thats my excuse and I'm sticking to it.:p

On a more serious note, the post was intended to be an encouragement to people who may want to know about co-existing Delta cards, soundfonts, soundblasters, 24 bit recording capability etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top