Why dig if you compress to mp3?

If you compress to a lower bit-rate MP3 then you're compounding lossy compression.
So what if my mp3 is only 160kbps? Im stuck with my final mp3 being 160kbps.

For hardware users:
MPCs Ive used, 1000 and 2500 cant even read .MP3s
MP3 converted into .wav is not the same as directly sampling a .wav(vinyl recorded) to start with.

In Audio Engineer school they teach to start with the highest possible sound quality.

Most people can't hear the difference over 192kbps, but so what? Do I want the fullest most accurate representation of the song? Or do I only want a compressed (LOSS)y representation in an attempt to cut down on file size but still get a good APPROXIMATION of the sound?
Personally I want to work with CD quality throughout, when it comes time to bounce you have more options.

Pro Tools doesn't recognize .mp3s either, they have to be converted into .wavs first. This is because editing (in any field) is ideally done in an uncompressed format. {my workflow = vinyl>mpc>protools theres no room for starting with an mp3 anyways}

This is the same as asking who would edit video files in a uncompressed format because its going to end up compressed anyways? Isn't obvious???

Why even have the option to record in 24 bit 192khz if its going to end up 16 bit 44.1khz ???
Why would people waste time to even forward technology to record at that level???
MORE INFO compressed > LESS INFO compressed

If an MP3 is all I have of the song then its all I have, but ideally I start with the highest quality because you end up with more options. You can bounce to any level mp3 without compounding compression, you can leave it as a .wav for cd release, bandcamp only accepts .wav ETC.
 
Any of you guys can quote me on this. "Spend more time being a musician and not a technician". Really at the end of the day you want a good track. If you are using a sample that you can only happen to get in mp3 format then so be it. If you can't achieve what you need from the mp3 then go and source a better quality version of that sample. As long as your final version sounds good in the end it doesn't matter. BTW most tracks end up at YouTube quality anyway. Listeners can't even be bothered downloading tracks anymore.
 
deanlofts said:
Any of you guys can quote me on this. "Spend more time being a musician and not a technician". Really at the end of the day you want a good track. If you are using a sample that you can only happen to get in mp3 format then so be it. If you can't achieve what you need from the mp3 then go and source a better quality version of that sample. As long as your final version sounds good in the end it doesn't matter. BTW most tracks end up at YouTube quality anyway. Listeners can't even be bothered downloading tracks anymore.
Click to expand...

Why go through the extra hassle? I mean I don't care anymore in fact I'm thinking of sticking this so hopefully no more threads like this are made but I don't think ppl would look lol. Anyway its your sound your music your legacy you can do the work or you can take short cuts. I choose to do the foot work
 
tonejunkee said:
Maybe it's a good time to protest mp3 and switch to OGG - the world would be happier then;)
Click to expand...

mp3s have their place in music distribution. The main thing with them though is you should try to avoid using them in your music production. But I think many people honestly don't care and use mp3s because they can be had for cheap/free so it will continue to happen kind of like piracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top