Drone7

BassDaddy
Drone7, your tone makes a good answer less likely than when you started. 

 
That's because the replies are getting more moronic and idiotic with every reply.

NO U!

Sanderxpander
Learning to not feed the trolls all over again.

Thank you for reminding me. I have had enough opportunities to learn that in the last ten days. 

Drone7

Sanderxpander

It's also completely irrelevant.

 
Not in my books!
 
And you forgot to say "IMO"
 
If you're suggesting that there's no difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed WAV file, i feel sorry for you.
 
 
For anyone else who cares, i still haven't had my questions answered and i would like to know! Cakewalk?

mp3 uses a lossy data compression, 16 bit 44.1kHz and 24 bit 96kHz wav files are not compressed. I'm not aware of any of the samples being in the mp3 format. Doesn't mean there are not any. There are some flac files though, if I remember correctly which uses a lossless compression and can be converted back into a wav file with no loss of data. I don't think any forum member is going to do all the work necessary to answer your question.

Folks points have been made, please agree to disagree... shake hands and move on...
 
FYI
 
MP3 is lossy compression
FLAC is lossless compression
WAV has no compression at all.
 
Cast aside the sample/bit rate discussion...
 
If losing sound quality is acceptable for a particular engineer then who is to argue, and sometime you don't get a choice when it comes to sound samples (you have to live with it), I know plenty of hit records with badly recorded samples, in some ways it may have added to the character of those songs.. If an MP3 sample purposely has distortion or huge reverb all over it the quality really becomes irrelevant.
 
Personally I think performance is the overall factor, production is not just about being an audiophile. However I do strive to get the best possible sound I can get... Making music is all about best compromise IMHO...
 
Many Thanks...

CakeAlexS
If an MP3 sample purposely has distortion or huge reverb all over it, the quality really becomes irrelevant.
 
Personally I think performance is the overall factor, production is not just about being an audiophile. 

 
I totally disagree with both your statements. It seems our approach differs...
 
1: I will never ever use a single MP3 waveform in song production
2: It is most definitely all about being an audiophile in my books.
 
A badly recorded 16bit 44.1 sample can be made to fit within a given context of any song, but an MP3 is a whole different story, it's a quality issue. The former could have character and can be chosen for a specific context in a specific instance. The later is just low-grade!
 
 
rabeach said... "I don't think any forum member is going to do all the work necessary to answer your question."
 
My response... i wasn't expecting anyone to do any work, i simply thought there might be some long time conscientious users who might be able to answer me off the top of their head without undue fuss. And also, someone from Cakewalk might have been able to tell me directly. If i made a DAW, i would certainly know exactly what sounds were what, and thus be able to answer such a question easily and without fuss. No work required!

I totally agree with your approach as well... Each to their own...
I certainly felt like you did 25 years ago, but we were using 2" then..
 
But one thing I would say, there is no "right" just opinion and approach.

BTW I would prefer to be quoted in context, by editing my quote you are making my opinion look as though it is something different/taking it out of context/fairly limited in vision, esp what is highlighted in bold.
 

CakeAlexS
If losing sound quality is acceptable for a particular engineer then who is to argue, and sometime you don't get a choice when it comes to sound samples (you have to live with it), I know plenty of hit records with badly recorded samples, in some ways it may have added to the character of those songs.. If an MP3 sample purposely has distortion or huge reverb all over it the quality really becomes irrelevant.
 
Personally I think performance is the overall factor, production is not just about being an audiophile. However I do strive to get the best possible sound I can get... Making music is all about best compromise IMHO...

CakeAlexS
But one thing I would say, there is no "right", just opinion and approach.

 
Not in my books. If you had won a competition, and the prize was for you to choose a BMW or Toyota, what do think 99% of people are gonna pick? You see what i mean? Quality is self evident, and most persuasive; people can say anything they want, but it's not just opinion.
 
Take a song destroyed down to MP3 or an uncompressed 24bit version of the same song, it's not a matter of 'opinion', it's clear which one is preferable, right? So, some opinions are definitely the 'right' opinion. Just sayin. If the industry told me i could only make music with MP3 waveforms from now on, i'd quit instantly, throw my passion in the bin and find something else to do, that's how serious i take the issue.

Sure the best quality sample is preferable. Who wouldn't agree?

I've worked for quite a long time in professional recording studios, sometimes (shock horror") we lifted samples from vinyl, and directly from a TV via cheap microphone. We kicked in amplifiers, we coughed all over the records. We even got stuff off cassette...

And guess what, a lot of those records were hits. They had a certain characteristic to them... When you realise the overall sound has distortion all over it you get to understand what you can live with and what you can't. And sometimes that weird thing you picked up the vinyl scratch, the tape hiss, the nasty sound the MP3 sound made when trying to compress a Hammond organ is exactly what I'm looking for.

Oh and some of those Fairlight samplers were nasty... yet they added their own uniqueness about them...
 
It just depends on what you want, if I was recording spoken word or the LSO I would take a totally different approach.
 
Not everything necessarily has to sound like Dire Straights...

@Drone7
 
I don't think anybody is criticising your wish to use the best quality samples in your projects, so I don't understand the hostility.
 
But I do think you are missing the point they are making about 'if it sounds good, it is good'.
 
I could use a $2 microphone and record a .wav sample in the field onto a $30 digital recorder. By your logic, that sample will sound 'better' than an mp3 of the same sound source created in a professional studio.