Page 2 of 2

Re: Mixing and Mastering costs

Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 4:34 pm
by kenrob2037
Ah ha, you hit the nail on the head Mark, it was the enhancements I had running on on playback sounds on my PC.

I turned them off and every media player I tried it in sounded the same as MC.

What a relief, I though it was something I was doing in the mix.

Thank you.

Just on the quality of audio files, there's a lot of talk about Super Hi Def Audio (SHD), but it looks like you need the right gear and the SHD audio file before it all works. But, should I notice a difference in sound quality between CD and Studio quality?

Thanks for that info Harry, I'll look it up, hopefully, I can get my local library to get it in; such is the life of a poor muso.

Cheers

Rob

Re: Mixing and Mastering costs

Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 7:59 pm
by Mark Bliss
Your welcome, glad you sorted that out.
Just on the quality of audio files, there's a lot of talk about Super Hi Def Audio (SHD), but it looks like you need the right gear and the SHD audio file before it all works. But, should I notice a difference in sound quality between CD and Studio quality?
Contentious subject. Opinions vary.

SHD might have value, if you had all the gear for it. I dunno. Out of my league, so its irrelevant to me.

The cold hard truth IMO, is first- that the vast majority of listeners are listening to lower quality audio on lower quality playback gear.
Next is that something like 98% of listeners could not consistently identify a 320K MP3 from a 44.1/16 CD quality audio file in a blind A/B test.
Hearing changes with experience hyper focusing as a mixer, I can tell you that. I hear things I didn't used to, and notice things I never did years ago, even with some age and environment induced hearing loss.
Personally, I think I can detect the difference between a 192K MP3 and a CD quality wav. But it is so subtle I don't think it is as big a thing as some others might. I will not claim to be able to tell the difference between a 320K MP3 and a CD quality wav, and would venture its likely you cant either. Set up a blind test and have someone switch between the two on the same song. Try it!

For me, as far as audio quality goes, an end result of a CD quality wav is perfectly adequate. It outperforms my playback equipment and my ears.
But there are reasons to use higher res audio files in the process of creating music, just as you would want a high quality image to make duplicate photo's or a top quality master pressing was used to create duplicate vinyl records, or you would want a top quality die for stamping thousands of duplicate auto fenders, etc. etc.

Another thing, I avoid using MP3 files within projects, but less because of quality than because it can cause track synching problems due to small variances in starting points.

If recording audio via a microphone, interface (pre-amp, Analog to Digital converter), using 24 bit and whatever reasonable sampling rate is available is a good idea. Very high sampling rates are kind of pointless unless you have high end mics, interfaces etc. It also creates larger files that take up more storage space if that's a concern. If you have an interface that supports anything like 44, 48 or 96 its fine. I wouldn't dwell on that. 24 bits is more important there IMO.

Within the DAW, its not a concern at all.

And since I think you said you don't record audio at this point, for your situation- the only real importance would be mix down decisions.

At mix down, choices depend a little on what you are doing with the file.

The only time I use MP3's there is if the file is destined for an online streaming service that requires it. Otherwise I don't use them or any other compressed format.
For the most part, for playback or burning CD's I use 44.1/16 wav
Occasionally 48K is used for video project requirements, in video editing software.
If I am archiving I might save as 24 or 32 bit files, but that's not a frequent thing for me.

Re: Mixing and Mastering costs

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 4:18 pm
by kenrob2037
We have a magazine here in Australia called Audio Technology and in the latest issue, they talk about the difference in sound quality of files. Basically, they say, there is no industry evidence that humans can hear a real difference between a 44 and 96 Hz file.

They also say, that only when there are certain plugins used can you perceive a slight difference between those qualities. They also say that 44Hz is the best quality for the majority of music production.

I've just started recording some audio, voice, and so far it all sounds pretty good, so hopefully, it will all blend together and I'll end up with a fairly good sounding commercial product.

Thanks for all the advice Mark, it has helped.

Cheers

Rob