This is scary!

[Tube60]

A good friend of mine's son is a musician, and in a conversation about what he's doing and the industry in general, he mentioned that the studio he records at now do the bulk of their master recordings in MP3 format! He's no audiophile, but he did ask them why, and the response was "Who cares?" That's pretty scary stuff if you ask me. I told him to find another studio.

 

[wrat]

damn that does suck BUT I am not surprised

 

[amey01]

I officially can't believe that. Surely not. Even if you listen to MP3 all the time and think it sounds fantastic, surely anyone with half (quarter) of a brain would know that it is not the thing for a "professional" master? Surely.

Honestly - there is NO excuse for MP3 any more - there was a place for it when disks were low in capacity, but now that 1TB + can be had for pocket change, what is the excuse for ANYONE using MP3 for ANY purpose??????

Basically - it's obsolete!

 

[FOUNTAIN]

Honestly - there is NO excuse for MP3 any more - there was a place for it when disks were low in capacity, but now that 1TB + can be had for pocket change, what is the excuse for ANYONE using MP3 for ANY purpose??????

Basically - it's obsolete!

Preach on brother!!!:clap: I asked some of the people I worked with which format they thought sounded/would sound better between CD,MP3,SACD, and Vinyl? Most picked MP3 while others said either CD or MP3 because they thought there was no difference between the two.:duh: I'm not sure why so many people would think this or just not care, but there seems to be a sentiment for only the newest or latest must be better. While MP3 will probably be with us for a little while longer yet, I look forward to the day when there will be no need for heavy compression or any compression at all. Of course this is just my two cents worth.

Glen

 

[amey01]

I look forward to the day when there will be no need for heavy compression or any compression at all. Of course this is just my two cents worth.

Glen

I just did a few calculations (I tried to remember what equipment I was using eight years ago) and worked out that an average FLAC file is now faster for me to download and takes up a relatively smaller percentage of my disk space than a 128k MP3 did when I first started experimenting with MP3 downloads.

It is actually not an insignificant difference either. 15 minutes for a 3 MB MP3 versus about 6 minutes for a 35 MB FLAC file these days.

Goes to show - there really is no excuse for MP3.

 

[User211]

I just did a few calculations (I tried to remember what equipment I was using eight years ago) and worked out that an average FLAC file is now faster for me to download and takes up a relatively smaller percentage of my disk space than a 128k MP3 did when I first started experimenting with MP3 downloads.

It is actually not an insignificant difference either. 15 minutes for a 3 MB MP3 versus about 6 minutes for a 35 MB FLAC file these days.

Goes to show - there really is no excuse for MP3.

For PCs, no, but then that's been the case for a long time. Unless you have a slowish connection and are using a streaming service like Napster (WMA). For portable devices like phones, there is still a need for a compressed format, but even that should be gone soon.

Fountain is so right - most people just don't understand what MP3 really is!

 

[Tube60]

I can only conjecture it's because it is cheap and the studio in question is both behind the times and doesn't care. Like I said, time to find another studio! Preferably one that still masters with an Ampex 300.... but that's just me....