Anything to do with film/TV picture seems to be improving, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are materializing and HD TV is already here but where music is concerned nothing has happened since CD's or SACD (Some people would argue that CD's are worse than Vinyl). At the studio end they're recording at brilliant levels 192Khz, 24-bit etc... but the consumer result seems to be a 128Kb/s MP3? It seems crazy! MP3 is great for portable music but when I'm at home I want to listen to the best that can be offered.
2007-07-04 00:09:43 · 8 answers · asked by randombushmonkey 3 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Other - Electronics
Unfortunately, it is down to consumer demand.
More people are concerned with how many tracks they can get on their nasty plastic toys, than how good the sound quality actually is. Additionally, music recordings designed for radio airplay are compressed to allow for the lousy musical reproduction of your average portable wotsit.
Hopefully, common sense will eventually prevail and people will actually start to LISTEN to music again, rather than just use it as a background to their lives...
2007-07-04 07:05:09 · answer #1 · answered by Nightworks 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Digital music can't reproduce all of the sound that analogue can, because it's coded in 0s and 1s - just signals of off and on. MP3 is worse because that cuts out parts of the sound that the ear is less likely to notice to save space. The most common problem with MP3 is the "underwater" effect when it's poor quality. This usually happens when a low bitrate is used or when it's been badly compressed. 128 Kb/s is still a bit low, you should use at least 192 Kb/s for portable music players and 256 Kb/s for good quality stereos. The poor quality should then be harder to notice, until you turn it right up which is when the pitfalls of digital music show up again. Get a decent turntable with a nice sharp stylus and some perfectly clean and unscratched vinyl, turn that up and notice the difference.
2007-07-04 01:44:14 · answer #2 · answered by Rodriguez 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For the most part, studios nowadays can produce higher quality recordings. The problem usually comes down to the mastering houses being forced to compress the hell out of everything. There is a HUGE difference in the amount of headroom on recordings from anything before 1990. There seems to be a loudness war going on with everyone wanting the absolute loudest CD. Once you compress the crap out of the 2 track, the majority of the dynamics that the tracking and mixing engineers worked so hard to attain, gets thrown by the wayside.
Mp3's make it even worse. They are taking an already too hot compressed master and compressing it even more so that we can have 30,000 songs on our iPods.
2007-07-05 05:57:32 · answer #3 · answered by avalve 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you would be fortunate getting stable sound from a digicam like that. Your ultimate wager is to get the permission of the band and the venue to enable the sound table operator checklist you a duplicate of the music/gig onto a cd or some thing, then upload the audio to the video later in placed up production
2016-11-08 03:13:30 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
MP3 is highly compressed. While it still sounds good, it loses in the compression. If you copy an MP3 file, it is compressed again and loses even more information. Copying an MP3 file is worse than copying a regular analog file as far as quality goes.
2007-07-04 04:15:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
one word....DIGITAL.
as far as audio is concerned digital is cheap....its easy and its rubbish.
bands spending hundreds of thousands on recording an album in a studio with high quality equipment are throwing their money away.
their album is released in a digital format and loses nearly all sound quality.
buy limited edition lps and hear the difference.
2007-07-04 00:16:41 · answer #6 · answered by Paula 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Buy vinyl. LPs have a top frequency response of early 30KHz as opposed to 16KHz for a CD.
2007-07-04 00:14:43 · answer #7 · answered by Del Piero 10 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
cds will degrade over a certain length of time
and how could you tell if just the cd itself
is of any great quality from the offset
2007-07-04 00:26:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋