--- In Klas Strandberg <> wrot=
e:
>
> Sorry, but I have to straighten this thread out for myself:
>
> Gabriel says: Even though people have said these are bad recordings,
> and I said you will run into trouble in peer review later for using MP3..=
.....
>
> Are you saying that Lauras files sound the way they do because it's MP3??
Well, I guess at least three issues emerged in the same thread.
1) What is the cause of the artifacts in Laura's recording? My impression w=
as that some knowledgeable people thought it could be low bit rate MP3 alon=
e. Others have put forward different explanations. Of course it will be imp=
ossible to say for sure on the basis of the sound file alone. This requires=
testing the equipment with different settings, and comparing it to referen=
ce equipment.
2) I said, perhaps a bit harshly, that MP3 should not be used for scientifi=
c recordings (also not if it is not the cause of Laura's problem). This was=
perhaps too strict, as Dan correctly pointed out, but in general MP3 is a =
bad choice. Science is expensive in terms of money and time. People will be=
grateful later if you spend a bit of money on an extra memory card, and us=
ed PCM/flac for recording.
3) For nonscientific purposes, what bit rates are acceptable for good quali=
ty? It is not surprising that the opinions on this vary :-)
Best, Gabriel
|