![]() Separate audio or MIDI into freely arrangeable takes and lanes for easy comping.Easily manage tempo, time signature, and varispeed changes.Full automation recording, playback, and editing support for track controls and plug-ins.Simple and powerful nested folder system allows group editing, routing, bussing, all in one step.Intuitive zoom, scroll, scrub, jog, tab to audio transient, MIDI navigation.Easily move, split, glue, resize, trim, loop, time stretch, pitch shift, fade, crossfade, slip, snap to grid, without switching tools.Freely mix audio, MIDI, video, still image media on any track.Drag and drop to import, arrange, and render.Once the mix is done a 320k mp3 holds up very well for most music.Reaper is a digital audio workstation: a complete multitrack audio and MIDI recording, editing, processing, mixing, and mastering environment. I use 320 mp3 for pretty much everything, except in a mixing session where I use 24 bit wav, since the extra bit rate is important when doing all the calculations from plugs. This also happens in the 320 version but much less as the compression is applied a little gentler. Another thing is although there is no cut off filter on the low end (or if there is one it is very close to 20hz) the extra compression really cause aliasing artifacts which affect other octaves above the compressed bass frequency. This is very noticeable, some songs more than others. The biggest difference will be in the aliasing caused by the extra compression in the 128 k. ![]() One difference is in where the cutoff filter is applied and as you noted the 128 k is at around 17k in your example which is lower than with a 320 k file as you again confirmed. You can take the same original file and shift it 1 ms then null and you will get a bunch noise. If there is a phase shift (time shift) of any amount due to conversion, when nulled against the original it will be a disgusting mess since the the waveform is literally not in the same time even by fractions of a ms. Trying to null these files against each other doesn’t really tell you much. But you can draw your own conclusions.Įven more interesting (if you can believe it)… I put an analyzer on all of them What does this tell us? I don’t really know and I don’t know if I care… But since the null resultant is what we would be missing, chop logic wants me to believe that I’m glad that I don’t have that mess in the 320… I know it’s wrong on so many levels. The 320 against the 128 leaves a phasey, spikey mess that is all high end and modulates wildly. The 320 against the wav leaves a fairly clear resultant that is consistent and just sounds like a band limited, quiet mix. A 44.1 24 bit wav, a 128 mp3 and a 320 mp3.įirst off… none of them will null with eachother when phase-opposed. But out of interest, I threw 3 renders of the same mix into my daw and put them to the test. I always figured that if my mix can’t cut it in an mp3(128), that it’s my problem, not the codec. I’ve been rendering my mp3s at 128 for so long (default in reaper) that I never even considered that there was a better alternative until I read the posting instructions for the manic mix contest.Ģ4bit wav, 16bit wav, 44.1… etc. ![]() I want to say that I can hear the difference. Asked in a post if there were any preferences as to 128kbps vs 320kbps and I thought that it might be worth discussing on its own.Īpart from the resultant file size I have no real problem either way.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |