L
-lil wayne -
New member
no, can u post examples please???
no, can u post examples please???
T
T Prod.
Hungarian User
get an original CD, choose a nice sounding track, grab it as WAV. convert it to a 192kbps MP3 and compare them.
of course we can talk about how XY artist recorded over an MP3. and what?
Last edited:
![[F_or_DEAF]](https://img.futureproducers.com/avatars/m/150/150788.jpg?1725613854){kind=avatar}
[F_or_DEAF]
New member
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
New member
You have a comprehension problem. No one said you Purposely mix a 160kbps mp3. But if that's what you got to work with, you should still get a good mix.
Do you know what poor mixing does to hihats even at 96khz/24bit? What consumer cares? What engineer will cringe at an mp3 instrumental when mixed right? You must've cringed thru most of the Young Money, Blueprint 3, and Carter 3 Albums. Ironically Em's last album had plenty of tracked out poorly mixed crap on it in comparison to the albums I just named, and his wasn't bad enough to make an engineer cringe.
Any time anyone feels up to the challenge, they can send me a shytty Mp3 stereo vers of a track they did at at least 160kbps and mix the same track themselves to see if the difference is that stellar. I'd dare to say if you don't know what you're doing I could make you look real stupid and return with a mix that blows yours out of the water.
Last edited:
901_Rice_Street
Rice AKA Clyde Drexler
Video changed my perfect life.
Last edited:
[F_or_DEAF]
New member
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
New member
^^^People are too technical these days to understand such simplicity. I find it ironic when the quality of mixes in 2010 aren't close to what they were in 1998.
How all these 64bit environments and top shelf plugs/gear at 96khz sample rates can't keep up wit a damn 44.1khz 16 bit ADAT, Digital multitrack card, or Minidisc? And why those 22khz mono drums and samples all coming off an MPC 2000XL(lower rates and mono so you don't run out of memory)still knock harder and make heads rock harder than alot of stuff today?
Even if we just take a look at current records. Why did a "basement recording" like 'Crank Dat Soulja Boy" outsell and gain more fame than tons of songs that were waaaaayyyyy better mixed?
Folk gonna stay missing the formula from using "calculators" trying to create art.
How all these 64bit environments and top shelf plugs/gear at 96khz sample rates can't keep up wit a damn 44.1khz 16 bit ADAT, Digital multitrack card, or Minidisc? And why those 22khz mono drums and samples all coming off an MPC 2000XL(lower rates and mono so you don't run out of memory)still knock harder and make heads rock harder than alot of stuff today?
Even if we just take a look at current records. Why did a "basement recording" like 'Crank Dat Soulja Boy" outsell and gain more fame than tons of songs that were waaaaayyyyy better mixed?
Folk gonna stay missing the formula from using "calculators" trying to create art.
Wedges2
AlphaMelee
O alright, I'll start makin an EP to test this already answered theory. That shoulnd't take much time.
[F_or_DEAF]
New member
i wouldn't even pay attention to a "technical" cat is i could find some .mp3 shit that knocks colder than his...ya know?
like you was sayin', shit ain't always as simple as .WAV > .MP3
901_Rice_Street
Rice AKA Clyde Drexler
Went back to listen to Ambitionz az a ridah.......forgot the real reason I was listening. lol
kahliljn
New member
word...
multi-band is the way to go w/ stereo .mp3 files...
Is this izotope ozone anygood?
T
T Prod.
Hungarian User
just the fact that poor mixing exists don't change how a 160-192 kbps MP3 kills dynamics and highs.
I agree that you have to make the most of what the client brings. Definetely.
But trying to make mix or master from an mp3 is ****ed up don't matter how you try to defend it. It's crap.
You can be creative and make it sound better than others, but there are mathematical limits to what you can achieve. End of story.
Especially ridiculous when you consider the fact that with today's possibilities it is easier to send large data than ever before. So bad that less and less people care about quality.
Last edited:
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
New member
^^^No offense, but your mixes don't reflect you view.
They're "good enough", and for all I know, you could be like me and not care enough about a mix on a beat(rather than song) to take the time to address every issue in the mix, but from your standpoint on overanalyzing the sound of a 192kbps hihat, and past posts where you've swore an "MPC has a distinctive sound", ect. I can't believe that, lol.
Also don't forget while throwing around "mathematical facts" that there are different MP3 encoders. Some do waaaaayyyyy better jobs than others that even consumers can easily recognize the difference in(not that it has much to do with avg MP3 beat that comes into a studio). But not all 192kbps mp3s "kill dynamics and...highs?("highs" are still...dynamics, lol).
They're "good enough", and for all I know, you could be like me and not care enough about a mix on a beat(rather than song) to take the time to address every issue in the mix, but from your standpoint on overanalyzing the sound of a 192kbps hihat, and past posts where you've swore an "MPC has a distinctive sound", ect. I can't believe that, lol.
Also don't forget while throwing around "mathematical facts" that there are different MP3 encoders. Some do waaaaayyyyy better jobs than others that even consumers can easily recognize the difference in(not that it has much to do with avg MP3 beat that comes into a studio). But not all 192kbps mp3s "kill dynamics and...highs?("highs" are still...dynamics, lol).
T
T Prod.
Hungarian User
why do you say no offense, when you're only intention is to offend?
anyway, thanks but my mixes are tight. I'm out.
T
thedanahocking
New member
I know that a lot of people on here already understand this, but mp3 is a lossy compression format for audio. That means that you're actually losing portions of your audio data each time you compress it to an mp3.
If you were to compress a beat to mp3, then work with it in a song (say, to record vocals) and then export it again to an mp3, you would have lost quality twice. Ideally, you should only convert audio to an mp3 one time (once everything is done, mixed, and mastered). Every other time that you do it, you're needlessly losing audio quality and if you do it enough, those losses start to stack up.
If you're having a problem with wav file sizes, I would suggest using drop.io. Drop.io is a free service that allows you to upload files up to 100MB which should cover just about any wav you're working with.
Hope this helps.
Dana
If you were to compress a beat to mp3, then work with it in a song (say, to record vocals) and then export it again to an mp3, you would have lost quality twice. Ideally, you should only convert audio to an mp3 one time (once everything is done, mixed, and mastered). Every other time that you do it, you're needlessly losing audio quality and if you do it enough, those losses start to stack up.
If you're having a problem with wav file sizes, I would suggest using drop.io. Drop.io is a free service that allows you to upload files up to 100MB which should cover just about any wav you're working with.
Hope this helps.
Dana
deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup
New member
why do you say no offense, when you're only intention is to offend?
anyway, thanks but my mixes are tight. I'm out.
Absolutely was not. I'm making a point. Do you actually beleive your mixes are up to par with a commercial record that's recognized for it's engineering? Most people's aren't. Dre's 2001 album was for 1999. Biggie's Life after Death was for 1997. Linkin park's had stellar stuff. It's 2010, your mixes are backing my point that over a decade later, all these high end resolutions and processes aren't enough to get the same quality. If you had, i woulda gave props. Don't take it as more than it is, even Timbaland has engineers with plenty of mixes that fall short.
All i'm saying is if your mixes aren't "wowing" folk, and are just "getting by" like mixes by folk like myself who aren't anal about how we work and what we work with, why put in all the work and spout audiophile uselessness that your mixes don't back?
If you can't show n' prove, it's all talk.
And I genuinely meant no offense, don't take a critique as anything less or more. I didn't say your mixes were bad, I said they aren't anything special. Trust me, If I care enough about a song...I can give you special. You act like you care about every detail of every one you do, but the mixes aren't showing that dedication. Stuff comes straight off the board sounding like that. Again, genuinely, not talking shyt, just saying.
Last edited:
Desmond *A*
New member
word...
multi-band is the way to go w/ stereo .mp3 files...
Man u aint scared of that compressor huh? lol, I dont like doing any master bus limiting past 6 or 7.
901_Rice_Street
Rice AKA Clyde Drexler
What's better got dammit! A 24 bit wav file recorded using a laptop soundcard and mic or the same recording as mp3 with a sony 800g and highend preamp? Those are diferences, not the file. Why worry about a files type, when you don't have a high quality chain anyway? Oh, you get more headroom on a shitty ass recording? :rofl: Flipside, all the 24 high quality profession instrument stems, but recording with a 2 dollar mic. It can still sound good if you know what you doing + it's all you have to use. If the songs garbage, the songs garbage. Oh, your mixes sound better than commercial release, but nobody likes your song....that's something to worry about. I had a wu tang greatest hits bootleg cassete that I liked more than the new release at the time.
People will waste their lives faking quality replace it with garbage from someone else's theorectic knowledge got your mind in a crystal clear bondage.
Mixing is art. There is no bad mix, just bad music. I don't know what a bad mix sounds like, but I do know what a song that is garbage does.
People will waste their lives faking quality replace it with garbage from someone else's theorectic knowledge got your mind in a crystal clear bondage.
Mixing is art. There is no bad mix, just bad music. I don't know what a bad mix sounds like, but I do know what a song that is garbage does.
Last edited:
[F_or_DEAF]
New member
well shit...
that's what them soundclick artists AND producers is doin'...
producer sellin' some "lossy" shit in the first place, rapper records his vocals on the shit, and then RE-UPs the same shit to his myspace / facebook...greazy if you ask me...
T
T Prod.
Hungarian User
we have a very different approach to things. I don't understand, if my mixes doesn't sound like Dr. Dre's 2001, I can't make a true statement about a lossy compression and can't say it shouldn't be used for mixing?
I never said that my only obstacle to a 2001-sounding mix is mp3 or anything. I know I have a lot to learn but I don't know why you had to bring up my mixes when the thread was nothing about my shit.
---------- Post added at 07:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 AM ----------
we didn't talking about wack songs or good songs, c800g or 5$ mic, high-quality chain or low-budget. the thread title says "MP3 or WAV".
if I don't have the best equipment, mixing skills in the world that means I should **** my shit up even more with MP3s? come on.