Couple dumb referencing questions

Couple dumb referencing questions
0.0 0

#21

we all have an approach. one mans thoroughness is another mans overthinking


#22

I park the reference tracks right in the session and keep them muted until I need them. Then when I’m half way through the mix I start toggling them on and off.

Thats the only way I know of to get a hold of a 44.1 or 48k wave file.

I also rip audio from DVD’s just to see how the mix was distributed and panned into the different speakers. I use those as references in the same way.

Same with video games. Strait out of the HDMI port of my Xbox, through a decoder, and into a digital input in the DAW.

But hell no, I’m not buying a brand new CD for $15 if its something I can find on Amazon for 99 cents. Same with movies.


#23

whats the quality of amazon mp3s though?


#24

I wouldn’t hesitate to use one if it was all I had to work with or I was in a time crunch.


#25

?? I was talking about buying a physical CD used off amazon.


#26

lol. so in other words there is no way for me to have a decent ref track on my computer within the hour? lol

I have some decent stuff on CD but nothing really modern. Probably the most “modern” production I have is a Jorn CD from 2008. Its got some good sounds etc, dunno if anyone would consider it “great” though. of coruse if I could make my stuff sound as good id be somewhat happy (for 2 minutes anyway)

says he produced it himself


#27

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that I prefer a hi res wave file. And I just proved that I have a reference monitoring system where I can clearly and consistently hear the difference between the two.

What I am not saying is that Mp3’s are insufficient for this purpose. What I am not saying is that they are not decent. Nor am I claiming that I am above using them myself.

The question is if I can hear the difference then why am I still ok using mp3’s? Right? The answer is because though I can hear the differences, the differences are minor enough to where a hi quality mp3 still adequately serves its purpose as a reference track.

see…


#28

yeah i gotcha. I seriously doubt my ear is currently sophisticated enough to hear the difference anyway

What I might do is order some Cds for the car, stuff like Chevelle and maybe other stuff mixed by same dude (joe barresi) and in the meantine i might buy a few mp3 just for the heck of it to have something to play with today


#29

JJ, you could also buy a single mp3 from, say, Amazon and then after you d/l, pull up its properties and see what bitrate is listed in the Details, as described above. That way you’re out only a buck, and if it’s only 256kbps or less, you’ll know your answer.

I think this kind of information is not heavily touted (i.e. they don’t just post the kbps value as a matter of course) on music purchasing websites because so few people care or can tell the difference. @Jonathan and the rest of us are most definitely not the typical music consumers, the vast majority of whom don’t have audiophile-quality playback gear.

When I took that test on my studio-grade cans I still missed one, if memory serves (it’s been many months). Drove home the point that – especially with my deteriorated hearing – I can’t always tell the diff between 320 kbps mp3 and wav, when they’re at the same depth of 16 bits. But as I wrote about in my long post I linked to, there’s a world of difference with 24 vs 16 bit depth material.

That said, I wouldn’t bother using 24 bit depth tracks for referencing because I know that hardly anyone uses that, and I’d be holding my stuff up to a standard that is artificially high. Now if I DID use 24-bit reference material and got it to match real well with my mixes, then in principle any such mix rendered at only 16 bits ought to pass with flying colors.


#30

yeah they say they use “variable” rate bitrate blah blah that they claim averages 256k


#31

Don’t forget that the library has a lot of CDs. And you can often get them cheap on eBay or Amazon too, used.


#32

There is no bit depth in an mp3 file Dave, only a bit rate.


#33

Roger that, my post here predated my being educated in the other thread. :wink: