This is always in interesting topic and difficult to discern with the conversions to the presentation media (mp4), as suggested in the segment.
It might have been interesting however, to subtract the two mixes and listen to the difference signal, if any. This can be a good quantitative illustration as well.
I think it was George Massenberg who demonstrated this recently with mp3 codecs so that all that was left were encoding and decoding artifacts.
- Geoff
I use mp3s but I can't even stand to listen to a 128bit mp3 on anything. The chittering sound drives me up a wall. I realized several years ago that my ears might be trustworthy because none of the musicians or sound engineers I knew (no uber pros obviously) heard this, a couple even said I was crazy - yet there it is. Nowadays no one (consumers) notices it because they are so used to listening to shitty sound. It is like the onward and upward march of more master compression, every year. Dynamics? Clarity? Boiled Frogs?
Thanks for pointing out George Massenberg, I wasn't familiar with his comments on this matter or his comparisons.
It amazes me how under developed most musician's ears are.
I am not trying to put anyone down, but I am shocked how often
this comes up. Now I will say that the MP3 and other codecs have
improved over the last few years, but there is still a difference.
For a group who are hoping to make their living as professional
musicians, it seems to me that they would have a vested interest
in being able to critically listen.
That being said, we are constantly bombarded with sound
from stores, televisions, our cars, our phones, etc.
We almost never hear music under ideal circumstances,
so it is no surprise most people can not tell the difference
between an AIFF or MP3.
You'd just expect people involved in audio to be a bit more
discerning.
i think, like any skill, listening skills require development prior to growth - i reflect on singer/songwriter randy newman who once stated he woun't know a good or a bad snare sound if it hit him over the head
many musicians are artists not engineers
that said - being both now is almost a requirement
working your craft from all ends is the ticket these days - why - because we can, and we are competing with those that do - we are all infront of a great opportunity by being able to not only write our own music but record it ourselves
l
Cheers
Filmusic
Filmusic, your point is well taken, and the Newman quote is a good example of
what I was trying to get at; True you do not expect musician's to do the work
of the engineer, and so if they don't know how to mic a drum, not a big deal...
but one would think if a musician took their craft seriously, then the drummer
would know how to tune their drum heads. I don't expect guitarists to know
mic their amp, but I do expect them to know how to tune their guitar.
So on the one hand, perhaps I should not be surprised that most musicians
can not hear details and differences in audio codecs.
However it still seems like if your career is creating sound, then you would
at least be able to critically listen to your own instrument.
And I do think that to some degree musicians and song writers might
serve their careers better by focussing on being good at being
good musicians and great song writers. Multi-tasking isn't really a
positive quality for music.
Does anyone know where the "All Our Yesterdays" ITB and summed mix examples are posted? The video says they'll be online, but I can't find them....
Check out www.eveaudio.com for my business, and www.vangomusic.com for my music!
I just watched the section, on the DVD, with the comparison between the Analogue summed mix and the Digitally summed mix.
I was hoping (and expecting) to hear that the Digital version was equal to or better than the analogue version. To my surprise, the Analogue version sounded superior. To my ears, there was a fuller more complete and cohesive sound (and feel) about the Analogue version.
Therefore, I'm going to have to drop (or at least reduce) my Digital snobbery. Lol!
Stuart