Sound Quality - halfway there ?

Bluebirdstudios

Hi all,
Reading Sound-on-Sound this month I couldn't help but notice the add in the back pages which claimed that music studios are dead and careers in that field are basically gone ? Which lead me to think this -
The Mp3 formant is probably the most listened to worldwide today due to Ipods, PCs and other MP3 handy players. But with computers and broadband speeds ( I know I know Ireland will be behind !) heading towards a stage where full res files can be transmitted quickly surely we can expect to see MP3 players being replaced by other units which have Wav /Aiff 16 bit 44.1 k as there lowest option and the ability to play 24 bit 192k or above.
Re the title I think this cycle has began, were half way thru it. If this happens maybe the quality of the high-end studios will be realised by the average listener and it might prove to be the catalist to revitalise the professional studio market ? Listening to MP3's might be the tape cassette of old.
Any thoughts .......
-Declan
PS this is not professional studios versus home enthusiasts debate it's more to get the full benefit of a professional recording you need to media to realise that quality. MP3 doesn't cut it..

11811

Interesting idea, although the majority of folk who use Mp3 players and the like probably could not tell the difference between an AAC/MP3 and a high quality WAV/AIFF, and probably would not appreciate the little longer download time...(looking at it from a mass market view).

Also, wouldn't it be a waste of a high quality recording to listen to it on the fairly crappy headphones provided with most portable players?

Personally I'd prefer to able to download high quality audio and not too many online services have a facility for this but couldn't see it taking off as such. maybe getting to the CD quality stage, but not much further.

seannash

to be honest ive found that a quality recording still sounds better than a not so great recording when its compressed down to a lower bit rate.

if you start with quality you should still have some remnants of that quality once its turn into a lower bitrate.

traditional recording isnt really my area but i do think that something recorded in a proper studio with proper equipment will always sound better than what can recorded in a home studio.

PaulBrewer

I think Sean is right .

The Beatles or Steeley Dan or ABC or Queens of the Stone Age still sound better than most local things on any format.

I think you're right re format though - this can be seen with iTunes who now charge more for a higher 'spec' file.

Interestingly I think an iPod is a good sounding machine - so there isn't a 'lid' on technological quality performance-wise.

madtheory

In blind AB testing I find it's very difficult to tell the difference between a 320k mp3 and the original 16 bit version. It's on a par with the differences between DA converters. Very subtle, more on an emotional level than purely sound quality in the usual sense. However I've only ever done such a test with really good recordings such as Steely Dan etc. and never on seriously good speakers, only on my trusty cans. So I would say that Paul's assertion is correct. Sound quality is down to the expertise of the people making the recording, the format is only a small part.

I have a lovely record player, and if a record is well made the CD is indistingushable from the LP (as long as the disc is clean and scratch free). Prince's "Lovesexy" is a good example. Incredibly well recorded.

For final delivery 16 bit 44.1kHz is perfect. when used correctly (which takes effort and expertise). Dynamic range around 96dB (most listening rooms only have 50dB or less), flat from 20Hz to 20hHz (most loudspeakers roll off at 15kHz). If you can't get a good sound with that, you're in the wrong business IMO.

Companero

interested in the full bandwith audio.

Why bother with a file 10 times the size for a difference you cant hear?

This is definitely not something that will revitalise the studio market: The difference between 320K mp3 and 16 bit wav is only significant to the tiny percentage of (mostly male) consumers who care about such things.

Most everybody else is just bopping around their bedroom playing air guitar and enjoying themselves, metephorically speaking.

The thing that'll keep big studios going now is their rooms and their engineers/staff. The electronic side of it is not so important anymore. But many home recordists learn the hard way that it is difficult to make pro sounding records at home, cause the acoustics are crap, you cant play at full volume for long before somebody gets pissed off, and it's difficult to engineer a recording and play on it at the same time. Plus the fact that it takes years to learn to be able to trust your jusgements in this area.

So people will still keep going to (a smaller number) of pro-studios.

That said: If anything is going to kill studios, it's illegal downloading. Why would you pay a couple of grand to record something if you'll never get any
money for it?

TelePaul

Was anyone else expecting this thread to be about Bon Jovi?

Doge

Mp3 players have had the capability of playing Wav files for a long time,
at least the decent ones anyways, among a wide range of other formats.

I've been playing flac files on mine for a good few years,
its the albums i really love, i tend to go to the trouble of encoding in flac.
For everything else 320kbps will do me fine.

Bluebirdstudios wrote: »

and the ability to play 24 bit 192k or above.

Isn't that a bit overkill when listening on headphones?

Can people actually hear the difference easily between 16bit and 24bit (or above) on a normal sound system?

I'd imagine even on studio monitors, it would be extremely diffiicult to tell those bit depths apart, let alone comparing 320kbps mp3s to wavs.