FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > One for anoraks
One for anoraks
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *obness OP Man
over a year ago
york |
I did warn you. This is as good a place to ask as any. Just bought a small pocket size recorder. Handy for concerts etc. there are 4 recording options wav 16, mp3 64 128 192. Forgetting about file size, which is going to give me the best recording quality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *Ryan-Man
over a year ago
In Your Bush |
"I did warn you. This is as good a place to ask as any. Just bought a small pocket size recorder. Handy for concerts etc. there are 4 recording options wav 16, mp3 64 128 192. Forgetting about file size, which is going to give me the best recording quality?"
192 will give the best quality |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I did warn you. This is as good a place to ask as any. Just bought a small pocket size recorder. Handy for concerts etc. there are 4 recording options wav 16, mp3 64 128 192. Forgetting about file size, which is going to give me the best recording quality?
192 will give the best quality"
Might have to disagree with you if by Wav 16 they mean 16 bit Wav file, then the sample rate is more critical, so recording at something like 48khz. Mp3 is a more compressed format which effectively records only part of the frequency range, while Wav records the entire range that the microphone can supply (which is another point- if recording something essential then a better mic could be good if you have an input for it).
If the sample rate of the Wav is below 44.1khz (CD quality, best to do some tests but the mp3 192 may be better). You might also consider the codec the Wav records in as the quality of these vary (Wav is just a file format, the codec is the recoding tool) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I did warn you. This is as good a place to ask as any. Just bought a small pocket size recorder. Handy for concerts etc. there are 4 recording options wav 16, mp3 64 128 192. Forgetting about file size, which is going to give me the best recording quality?
192 will give the best quality
Might have to disagree with you if by Wav 16 they mean 16 bit Wav file, then the sample rate is more critical, so recording at something like 48khz. Mp3 is a more compressed format which effectively records only part of the frequency range, while Wav records the entire range that the microphone can supply (which is another point- if recording something essential then a better mic could be good if you have an input for it).
If the sample rate of the Wav is below 44.1khz (CD quality, best to do some tests but the mp3 192 may be better). You might also consider the codec the Wav records in as the quality of these vary (Wav is just a file format, the codec is the recoding tool)"
All things considered, it's unlikely a 16 bit WAV file will be lower quality than a 192kbps MP3 file. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I never listen or download mp threes ever ever I have a recording studio and we mixdown to wav for the very reason it is better quality mpthree is about saving space |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
People request mp threes of their songs all the time and the answer is always the same no you can have it as a wav or CDa what's the point of using hi end stuff just to play back an mp three it's a waste of time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I did warn you. This is as good a place to ask as any. Just bought a small pocket size recorder. Handy for concerts etc. there are 4 recording options wav 16, mp3 64 128 192. Forgetting about file size, which is going to give me the best recording quality?
192 will give the best quality
Might have to disagree with you if by Wav 16 they mean 16 bit Wav file, then the sample rate is more critical, so recording at something like 48khz. Mp3 is a more compressed format which effectively records only part of the frequency range, while Wav records the entire range that the microphone can supply (which is another point- if recording something essential then a better mic could be good if you have an input for it).
If the sample rate of the Wav is below 44.1khz (CD quality, best to do some tests but the mp3 192 may be better). You might also consider the codec the Wav records in as the quality of these vary (Wav is just a file format, the codec is the recoding tool)
All things considered, it's unlikely a 16 bit WAV file will be lower quality than a 192kbps MP3 file."
A 22k or 11.5k mono file with a crappy codec will sound worse than a decent mp3.
Ultimately its all down to what the listener thinks- record the same thing in the two formats ask use your ears. If I ever record for broadcast or any specific purpose I always ask the client if they have a preference on format, codec and data rate and recoding device as they're the one paying for it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never listen or download mp threes ever ever I have a recording studio and we mixdown to wav for the very reason it is better quality mpthree is about saving space "
I'm similar- always prefer to buy a CD then I can compress it how I like for playback elsewhere...and I've always got the original if my PMP fucks up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Basically if you have the space use wav if space is in short supply them go mp3 I can afford to be anal about it as space is not something we have to worry about |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People request mp threes of their songs all the time and the answer is always the same no you can have it as a wav or CDa what's the point of using hi end stuff just to play back an mp three it's a waste of time "
but how can you get high quality play back when most just listen on their phone
I did know one very well known producer who had some small transistor radio speakers in the studio to see what it sounded like as that was what most would hear the tracks through |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I did warn you. This is as good a place to ask as any. Just bought a small pocket size recorder. Handy for concerts etc. there are 4 recording options wav 16, mp3 64 128 192. Forgetting about file size, which is going to give me the best recording quality?
192 will give the best quality
Might have to disagree with you if by Wav 16 they mean 16 bit Wav file, then the sample rate is more critical, so recording at something like 48khz. Mp3 is a more compressed format which effectively records only part of the frequency range, while Wav records the entire range that the microphone can supply (which is another point- if recording something essential then a better mic could be good if you have an input for it).
If the sample rate of the Wav is below 44.1khz (CD quality, best to do some tests but the mp3 192 may be better). You might also consider the codec the Wav records in as the quality of these vary (Wav is just a file format, the codec is the recoding tool)
All things considered, it's unlikely a 16 bit WAV file will be lower quality than a 192kbps MP3 file.
A 22k or 11.5k mono file with a crappy codec will sound worse than a decent mp3.
Ultimately its all down to what the listener thinks- record the same thing in the two formats ask use your ears. If I ever record for broadcast or any specific purpose I always ask the client if they have a preference on format, codec and data rate and recoding device as they're the one paying for it"
True, but still unlikely that this is the option on offer...though if 192kbps MP3 is the best it offers, then low sample rate .wavs may be all that's on offer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People request mp threes of their songs all the time and the answer is always the same no you can have it as a wav or CDa what's the point of using hi end stuff just to play back an mp three it's a waste of time
but how can you get high quality play back when most just listen on their phone
If you get it right at source it's a better result a nothing wrong with having some rot boxes as we call them in your studio to listen back on so you can get and idea of what it will sound like on different systems I have some myself. But a wav on a crap system will sound better than an mp 3 on a crap system.
But yes both crap really if it's a super crappy system.
I did know one very well known producer who had some small transistor radio speakers in the studio to see what it sounded like as that was what most would hear the tracks through "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
44khz 16bit WAV is the highest quality on offer here (assuming it does 44k of course).
Most people however cannot tell the difference between that and 192 mp3's unless you are a hyper-critical audiophile listening to a very familiar track on reference speakers in a treated room while cross-referencing with the uncompressed WAV. Most people really haven't got a clue about the quality they are listening too (crappy mp3's aside), not because their ears are rubbish, but because the listening environment colours the sound too much.
Any mp3's above 192 are just for piece of mind more than anything else (and the fact that you can play them on mp3 players, whereas WAV's often can't be).
I would only ever record in 16bit 44k WAV (or higher) as you can always compress down to mp3 to save space, but cannot reverse the data loss when going back the other way.
If you wanna maximise your audio quality, then I'd recommend spending out on a decent mic, but only after testing all those in the running to see if their quirks suit your ear.
Source - Studio owner. Me.
(If anyone local is stalking us here on Fab, I think I just gave us up! :D)
*waves* |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I should add that as soon as you drop below 44k you will notice the loss in quality immediately as aliasing noise creeps in. Same with Mp3's, below 192 and things start to suck real quick.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obness OP Man
over a year ago
york |
Wow. Thanks for all the comments. This is an £80 recorder reduced to clear at £40. It has 3 purposes. Me sitting on the settee dodling something new and wanting to know what it sounds like without going upstairs, warming up a behringer, shifting stuff out of the way etc. 2 nd. Sitting in my mates kitchen. 1st or second time through of something new. Is it worth progressing? 3 discreetly at concerts. Wav it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"44khz 16bit WAV is the highest quality on offer here (assuming it does 44k of course).
Most people however cannot tell the difference between that and 192 mp3's unless you are a hyper-critical audiophile listening to a very familiar track on reference speakers in a treated room while cross-referencing with the uncompressed WAV. Most people really haven't got a clue about the quality they are listening too (crappy mp3's aside), not because their ears are rubbish, but because the listening environment colours the sound too much.
Any mp3's above 192 are just for piece of mind more than anything else (and the fact that you can play them on mp3 players, whereas WAV's often can't be).
I would only ever record in 16bit 44k WAV (or higher) as you can always compress down to mp3 to save space, but cannot reverse the data loss when going back the other way.
If you wanna maximise your audio quality, then I'd recommend spending out on a decent mic, but only after testing all those in the running to see if their quirks suit your ear.
Source - Studio owner. Me.
(If anyone local is stalking us here on Fab, I think I just gave us up! :D)
*waves*"
I can't stand 192 mp3's and can certainly tell the difference in a blind test between 192 and 320, though I struggle to tell the difference between lossless and 320, unless it's on our 'proper' hifi with no extraneous noise.
But then there are plenty of folks that can't tell the difference between an image took with an iPhone and one took with a high-end SLR, so it's horses for courses  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I can't stand 192 mp3's and can certainly tell the difference in a blind test between 192 and 320, though I struggle to tell the difference between lossless and 320, unless it's on our 'proper' hifi with no extraneous noise.
But then there are plenty of folks that can't tell the difference between an image took with an iPhone and one took with a high-end SLR, so it's horses for courses "
Exactly! But you and I aren't most people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wow. Thanks for all the comments. This is an £80 recorder reduced to clear at £40. It has 3 purposes. Me sitting on the settee dodling something new and wanting to know what it sounds like without going upstairs, warming up a behringer, shifting stuff out of the way etc. 2 nd. Sitting in my mates kitchen. 1st or second time through of something new. Is it worth progressing? 3 discreetly at concerts. Wav it is. "
"Wav is much better mp three is compressed to the max less dynamics wav all day long
Yeah but WAV files are huuuuge!!!
"
^This!
OP - Now knowing your intended uses, you could use 192 mp3's for your doodles to save space and transfer time (if indeed either was an issue for you).
For gigs though, whack it on the highest quality WAV setting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It doesnt like wav files on an sd card. Records 10 seconds then moves to another section - as irritating as the old cartridge players. Quite happy on mp3 192 though. "
That'll be the buffer limit of your SD card. Try a card with a faster write speed.
Oh, and try formatting the card to get the most out of it's potential. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Probably, anyway.
Could just be that your recorder has been nerfed with crappy hardware and can only handle 10sec WAV clips no matter what. 
More than likely just the SD card though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It doesnt like wav files on an sd card. Records 10 seconds then moves to another section - as irritating as the old cartridge players. Quite happy on mp3 192 though.
That'll be the buffer limit of your SD card. Try a card with a faster write speed.
Oh, and try formatting the card to get the most out of it's potential."
What they said
Get something like a class 10 SDHC card from Kensington- they're used to record HD video on a DSLR.
Do check your manual/ Online forums to see if there is a maximum card size your recorder will handle (you might need to do a firmware upgrade to achieve this) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its a micro sd card and i have nothing to format it in. However, i just put a 26 gb card in. At mp3 192 it seemed quite happy. It would take 184 hrs of recording! "
Most devices have a 'format card' option in them. You read the manual yet?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I can't stand 192 mp3's and can certainly tell the difference in a blind test between 192 and 320, though I struggle to tell the difference between lossless and 320, unless it's on our 'proper' hifi with no extraneous noise.
But then there are plenty of folks that can't tell the difference between an image took with an iPhone and one took with a high-end SLR, so it's horses for courses
Exactly! But you and I aren't most people. "
So pleased to hear it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's the same in our recording studio, we've got loads of playback options. From mp3 player right up to 1k line 6 amp with 2 line 6 4x12 cabs ! Even to what it would sound like on a car stereo . All our recording is done in WAV and we offer our clients a host of media, disc, mem stick , WAV file transfer or even good old tape !
Just make sure your mic is bloody good quality, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
to ask. I have some old camcorder videos I'd like putting onto either cd or more probably flash drive.
Its the 3" camcorder style tape it was videoed on. Is this possible - and anyone got an idea how much itd be for 8 to be transfered (pretty sure I used long play recording doing it)
Thanks!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"to ask. I have some old camcorder videos I'd like putting onto either cd or more probably flash drive.
Its the 3" camcorder style tape it was videoed on. Is this possible - and anyone got an idea how much itd be for 8 to be transfered (pretty sure I used long play recording doing it)
Thanks!!"
Use the original camera (or get one off eBay for pennies), or get a VHS-C adapter and line-in to your PC, some cheap video capture software (or whatever's already on your PC), some cheapo video editing software (Windows Movie, or whatever it's called this week will do an adequate job...and Bob's yer Uncle ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"to ask. I have some old camcorder videos I'd like putting onto either cd or more probably flash drive.
Its the 3" camcorder style tape it was videoed on. Is this possible - and anyone got an idea how much itd be for 8 to be transfered (pretty sure I used long play recording doing it)
Thanks!!
Use the original camera (or get one off eBay for pennies), or get a VHS-C adapter and line-in to your PC, some cheap video capture software (or whatever's already on your PC), some cheapo video editing software (Windows Movie, or whatever it's called this week will do an adequate job...and Bob's yer Uncle !"
Great, just about found the thread.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
errrm ... what do I use to line in. just looked at the vhs-c adapter.. I already have them on the larger sized vhs - though theses are now useless. I have the original camcorder, so what adapter/wire/sound cable or what to get it onto my pc?
thankys |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Interesting.
Many so called professionals saying .wav is better than .mp3, when both are just file TYPES, and within each type you can have different BIT RATES and CODECS.
The beeb uses 44.1 khz 16 bit wav, with a lossy codec.
You can get lossless codecs for both wav and mp3, and 320 mp3 will run lossless quite happily
one BIG limitation of wav is 4gig file size, RF64 is the real deal
==========================
as others have said, but not explicitly, it pretty much doesn't matter WHAT setting the OP uses, the inbuilt mic is the limit.
talk to the pro's doing video and the mic costs as much as the camera, for good reason.
the camera analogy is the lens, it's not the CCD in my smartphone that lets it down compared to a DSLR, it's all in the bloody lens.
if you want to record a concert from a fixed point, anything less than a 200 quid mic and you might as well record on to compact cassette. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting.
Many so called professionals saying .wav is better than .mp3, when both are just file TYPES, and within each type you can have different BIT RATES and CODECS.
The beeb uses 44.1 khz 16 bit wav, with a lossy codec.
You can get lossless codecs for both wav and mp3, and 320 mp3 will run lossless quite happily
one BIG limitation of wav is 4gig file size, RF64 is the real deal
==========================
as others have said, but not explicitly, it pretty much doesn't matter WHAT setting the OP uses, the inbuilt mic is the limit.
talk to the pro's doing video and the mic costs as much as the camera, for good reason.
the camera analogy is the lens, it's not the CCD in my smartphone that lets it down compared to a DSLR, it's all in the bloody lens.
if you want to record a concert from a fixed point, anything less than a 200 quid mic and you might as well record on to compact cassette."
When is a 4GB limit on .wav files for domestic recording use ever going to be a BIG limitation ?
As for your camera analogy, it's completely wrong, the CCD in your phone is about as big as my fingernail, you could stick an L Series lens on it and it still wouldn't be as good as a DSLR. I've got a Carl Zeiss lens on one of my Panasonic point and shoots and it's still a pile of shit compared to a cheap DSLR with a kit lens on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago
dirtybigbadsgirlville |
"try offering to shag the sound engineer in return for being able to plug your device into the mixing desk otherwise your recording will probably sound like a fart in a paper cup"
Ive never farted into a paper cup.....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And the BBC broadcast (for the most part) at 128kbps for DAB, unless that's changed recently ?
Lossless mp3 is possible but as rare as rocking horse shit, so all the answers given above are currently correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"try offering to shag the sound engineer in return for being able to plug your device into the mixing desk otherwise your recording will probably sound like a fart in a paper cup"
Even then it'll still sound shite without some ambient miking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Even then it'll still sound shite without some ambient miking."
wrong ...... unless you're a shite sound eng who can't cope with foldback..... regularly record all the gigs, festivals, stadiums we've done since 97 using a md into the desk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Even then it'll still sound shite without some ambient miking.
wrong ...... unless you're a shite sound eng who can't cope with foldback..... regularly record all the gigs, festivals, stadiums we've done since 97 using a md into the desk "
I've rarely heard a pure SB boot that I've liked, whereas I've heard some stunning matrix boots from SB and audience sources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you're doing it wrong then lol
"
I don't do it, I'm talking purely from a punters perspective. Pure SB recordings always sound too dry for my liking (even the ones that you buy immediately after the gig like Crowded House etc.)
Feel free to provide examples that will prove me wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And the BBC broadcast (for the most part) at 128kbps for DAB, unless that's changed recently ?
Lossless mp3 is possible but as rare as rocking horse shit, so all the answers given above are currently correct."
and as I said, lossless wav is possible, but as rare as rocking horse shit
128 kbs is not great quality.
1/ file format
2/ sample rate
3/ bit rate
4/ number of channels
5/ codec
they are all DIFFERENT things, and are all present in all the above discussed options.
you have to specify ALL of them.
people here bandying around one or two like top trumps, but real life isn't like that
48khz sample 320 kbps mp3 is EXTREMELY common ( I have just under 50k tracks in it) and with the codec set right is actually considerably higher quality than the 44.1 khz sample 16 bit wav discussed above with the wrong codec
you either record lossless, or you don't
not matter what you record, you can only record your source
the op's source will NOT be the band
it will be a crap mic and a 75 cent ramdac
these things are made for VOICE
using the higher settings is like setting 4800 dpi interpolation on a 600 dpi scanner, you don't get more detail, you get a bigger file with more noise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In the *context of this discussion*, all points were covered perfectly well before you waded in with irrelevant and misinformed analogies about scanners and sensors, and sidetracked with technological idiosyncrasies that are outside the field of the question.
The only real contribution you made was reminding the OP the a decent mic is paramount to audio quality (something I had already mentioned). All other factors are beyond his control.
Please don't be 'that guy'. Nobody likes 'that guy'. The internet is full of them, and most of us come here to get away from them, and have fun.
While I have no doubt that you are clearly experienced in your field, the OP's question has been quite satisfactorily answered, and would politely suggest that we all just go have some fun before this thread turns into geekoid chest-thump-a-thon.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
