|
Well the whole "it's all digitally produced music" "kind of" does apply... of course mastering a track changes the sound significantly... but the reality is, we ARE playing digitally produced music...
As others have said, one is not better than the other if either is done properly.
It is a sad fact that we are today using MP3 as a defacto standard. Sure it sounds "pretty good" at 320Kbps, but WHY settle for pretty good?
We take snapshots using 8 mega pixel digital cameras (and view them on our iPods), but can't be bothered to use music formats with greater bitrates than CD-quality (which was developed in the 1970's)? CDJ's should support SACD/DVD Audio, and sites like Beatport should offer higher bitrate (than CD's) quality files compressed with lossless codecs.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nemesis44
In terms of what sounds best it's definately in the ears of the beholder.
The way that actual wave forms work are different, if this makes a big over all difference on a dance floor is debatable.
The one thing that I have found noticable even in quality MP3s is that the encoding process is not as kind to the bass in a track as it is to the high end.
MP3 takes out parts that it does not feel is necessary to the overall signal and naturally as something is removed you are going to get deteriation in sound.
Anything that is digital is going to be broken up in tiny fragments that sound as one when they are played back. This is true also for Wav but not for analogue, which in theory should be a continuous wave form depending on the source given that the majority of studios these days have digital somewhere in the process.
A lot of people will joke and say that our music is digital anyway but that's slightly missunderstood as it doesn't quite work that way.
As stated before, anytime you encode something the source material is critical and needs to be of the highest quality possible.
Cheers
Nem |
|
