Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

On 1/9/03 2:12 PM, "erik_magrini@..." <erik_magrini@...>
wrote:

>>>> To be honest...probably not. :)  I'm not trying to be jerk, so please
> don't take it that way.  But if you're not sure about the questions that
> you asked above, then I'm guessing you're not too familiar with things
> like mastering and proper mixing, as those are the things that (by and
> large) give a song that nice polished, professional quality you're looking
> for.  MP3's are nowhere near pro-quality either in my opinion (why do I
> picture drK furiously typing a rebuttal to that statement?).  :)
> 

No disagreement here :-)

MP3s below 192kb/sec are strictly a consumer medium.  Most listeners in most
listening environments will not notice the difference. (shoot most think
64kb/sec is fine)  But once the bit-compression gets enough room to pack
things (like over 200kb/sec) it gets a bit murky as to what the benefits are
for using more data for delivery.  Remember most people today think 5.1 off
a DVD in a good home theatre is pretty hot audio.  It is also pretty
bit-crunched using a close relative of MP3.

Mastering for a high quality MP3 or other bit-compressed (compression as a
term is dual meaning so I am trying not to confuse) is an art onto itself I
believe and one does need to have good mixing and master skills before they
can take that beast on.

In fairness though mastering for a club sound system, a vinyl release for in
home listening, for a CD in a car, and even for a radio broadcast all
require some pretty well developed skills.  Media forces choices and
compromise.  Bit-compression is just another media (but one we all had
better come to terms with).

Anyway the bottom line is YMMV, and the variable is not necessarily that it
is bit-compressed but the skills of the final mixing and mastering.


drk

www.delora.com/music
www.mp3.com/zdrk
drk.iuma.com