In my opinion, neither are optimal, Robert. I have always hated the
Subject: 1/16 on CDs. Literally irritates me and I always have a hard time
listening to music or natural sounds
in that format. Because the MP3 low quality compression is expected,
I don't have so much of a problem
with the delivery because it doesn't promise more and so it's not
heard with an ear critical to that
type of formatting. It ain't a myth. The iTune folks have traded
digital real estate for quality and that, I'm afraid,
is also where the industry is headed at the moment.
In the studio, I have converted all my old analog material to
Subject: 1/24bit and typically record in the field using that format or
96/24, depending on the program material. Sounds lots better.
On Dec 15, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Robert Heckendorn wrote:
> I have a stack of Bernie Krause's wonderful CDs. I have visited
> Bernie's site recently and noticed that the store is filled with
> 192kbps MP3s. This is the iTune model of delivery. This is either a
> technical question or a "golden ear" question and not meant to imply
> anything bad about Bernie and his fabulous recordings... is 192kbps
> as good a recording as a CD? This seems to have been a debate when
> iTunes came out and I haven't really heard much except for speculative
> comments. What does this group of true audiophiles think about this?
> Is this discrepancy in quality a myth or fact?
> thanks for any comments,
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
Google Earth zooms: Earth.WildSanctuary.com