Re: Which edition?


D F Tweedie
 

David ...

I think you mean 'compressed,' not 'compromised.'

For those who haven't looked into this issue, calling files 'compressed' easily can lead to confusion.

There are two meanings. There are compression algorithms that reduce the size of the audio file by removing parts of the audio content. These are called 'lossy' formats, meaning that once compressed, the lost part of the audio can never be recovered from the file. WMA and MP3 are the best known of these examples, both using psychoacoustic principles to determine what is removed and what is retained.

There is a further consideration with this type of compression, in that compression can be performed at different levels of data reduction, ergo, "high quality MP3s," e.g., bit rates of 128, 196, 256, 320.

For example, a bit rate of 128 renders an MP3 file with 1/10th of the original content of a CD-Audio file of 16 bit and 44.1kHz ... whereas a bit rate of 320 renders a file with 1/4th the original content.

However, there is also file compression that has nothing to do with reducing or removing original audio data, it merely packs data more tightly for storage and then reverts it to its original size upon decompression. Examples are zip files or rar files.

It is this latter type of compression that is used for the WAV files in the Audiophile edition.

If you consider the old trick of using a copier and then copying the copy multiple times to see the degradation that occurs when you reduce data digitally, you will understand the value of the .WAV files for audio production in a DAW. Even though many DAWs operate at higher bits internally, each time an MP3 file is brought into a DAW it must be converted to a WAV or AIFF file, rendering a file absent at least 3/4ths of the original audio data. Now when this file is processed and then returned to a 16 bit, 44.1 kHz CD Audio file it is more likely to result in an inferior product than an originally uncompressed file.

Which is why I say, that for audio production I value the Audiophile edition with WAV files that are available uncompressed with respect to reduction of data.



From: "'David H. Bailey' dhbailey52@... [Band-in-a-Box]"
To: Band-in-a-Box@...
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Band-in-a-Box] Which edition?

 
On 12/10/2016 12:13 PM, Steve Thomas stevet@... [Band-in-a-Box]
wrote:
>
>
> I know this is a very subjective question, but any input is
> appreciated. I see I can upgrade to 2017 Pro, Megapack, UltraPlusPak,
> Everything plus Pakistan, or Audiophile editions. Is there a sweet spot
> for a casual user? I use tracks to practice with, and want to use BIAB
> to create demos and original music, but not a power user by any means.
> Thoughts?
>

The BIAB program itself is exactly the same in all versions of the
upgrade.

The differences between the different versions up through the Everything
Pak is the number of styles and the number of real instruments included.
Then the only difference between the Everything Pak and the Audiophile
Pak is that the real instrument files are all .wav files in the
AudioPak, compared to the high-quality mp3 files in the Everything Pak.
Since the .wav files are all compromised to begin with I see very little
difference between the Everything Pak and the Audiophile Pak, so I go
with the less expensive Everything Pak. And they always sneak some
extra goodies in their 49-Pak that is an extra-cost option so I usually
buy that, too.

So deciding which upgrade package to buy really depends on whether you
think you'll want the possibilities that come with a wider selection of
real styles and real instruments or whether you think you'll be
perfectly happy with fewer instruments and styles.

Power user or not, people can benefit by having more styles and
instruments to choose from. Or not -- it's a question only you can
answer for sure.

--
*****
David H. Bailey
dhbailey52@...
http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com


Join main@Band-In-A-Box.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.