[gregorio]

[1] Can someone point me to where this guy has been impolite?
[2] He may be wrong on the topic, but to me everyone else has been a condescending dick to him.
[3] I have only seen this guy try to be friendly and laugh off confrontation with light hearted responses only to be met with short snippy replies. Maybe I overlooked some of his replies?

1. Sure, here are a few quotes:
"I can and most people with good ears can pick out 24 over 16 bit depth." - According to this assertion, all those who cannot "pick out 24 over 16bit" (IE. Everyone!), have poor/bad ears. You think it's polite to tell everyone they have bad ears/poor listening skills, when in fact he has no idea what listening skills others have?
"If you don’t hear it there are two reasons One being the system used is subpar and can’t show what many can hear." - As an alternative to us all having poor listening skills/ears, here he's stating that we must have subpar systems. Most (if not all) of us here have put in considerable time, effort and money in order to achieve systems that are above par (good to excellent). You think it's polite to state our systems must be subpar?
"I follow all the math and it’s conjecture ..." - This assertion is clearly and demonstrably false and as this is the sound Science forum, false assertions are unacceptable. Of course, we can all suffer from misunderstandings and inadvertently make a false assertion but how is repeating the same unacceptable, false assertion even after it's been refuted, anything other than impolite? Especially as quite easy to avoid making false assertions in the first place, by simply asking as a question, instead of making a factual assertion.

2. And you don't think that stating/implying we all have "ears" (listening skills) and/or systems which are inferior to his is being a "condescending dick" to start with? In all likelihood, some of us have significantly better listening skills than him and it's virtually certain that at least one of us has a system significantly superior to his, so not only was he being a "condescending dick" but a hypocritical one!

3. Then you appear to have an issue with what you have "only seen". As many/most of his posts have included variations of the first two quotes above, you have maybe overlooked many/most of his replies?

G

 

[bigshot]

Well, I'm not offended. I can spot this kind of thing a mile away now. Hard to get worked up over it any more.

 

[gregorio]

I cannot be wrong if I simply say it’s my observation.

1. Great, so if I say I've observed ghosts, fairies, unicorns (or whatever), I cannot be wrong and they all must exist?

Not flaming but are you claiming you don’t HEAR with ears ? lol

Of course we don't hear with our ears, we hear (perceive sound) with our brains. Are you claiming you don't have a brain? lol

[1] I’m simply saying I can and to add to this plight for you guys [1a] I have a few buds who can too. [1b] One is a pro who makes music.

1. Which is impolite/insulting because we do not have a "plight", our hearing (and systems) agree with the demonstrated/proven science. You're the one with the "plight" because your hearing (or system) doesn't!
1a. So, you have a few buds with the same "plight" as you.
1b. That's not a good "plight" to have for a pro! Incidentally, I have many buds who cannot tell the difference between identical audio files and most of them are "pros who make music" for a living.

G

 

[Pro-Jules]

1. As has been discussed earlier in this thread, there are definite advantages of 24bit over 16bit for recording engineers. Namely, the huge dynamic range of 24bit allows much greater headroom (when recording) and therefore a lower mic pre-amp gain setting, which can result in less mic pre-amp noise/distortion. Additionally, many years ago, some non-linear plugins worked audibly better at 88.2 or 96kHz sample rates. However: Firstly, consumers reproducing a completed master obviously don't use mic pre-amps and also obviously don't need any headroom and Secondly, for more than a decade or so, non-linear plugins which can benefit from a higher sample rate, simply upsample internally.

2. Firstly, a recording engineer is not responsible for capturing the final mix, that's the job of the mix engineer, although admittedly, it's common for the recording engineer to also act as the mix engineer. Secondly, it's wise (and standard practice) to reduce the final mix to 24bit, again with significant headroom, for the benefit of the mastering process. Lastly, it's also wise as a music producer, recording, mix or mastering engineer to opt for 24/96 because a client may at some point require a hi-res version (for marketing purposes). Lastly, this thread is not aimed at the music producers and engineers creating music, it's aimed at consumers reproducing completed music masters, where there are no audible benefits of 24bit over 16bit.

If someone is going to call themselves a Recording Engineer (rather than just a Recording Person), surely it's required to have a decent/good understanding of not only recording but also of the underlying engineering?

G

I am not sure if you are trying to insult me with that last paragraph, (laughable if so) but to let you know, I was a 25+ year, career, recording studio audio engineer professional.

Some clarifications

Mixes these days aren't 'reduced' to 24 bit. The individual 'tracks' (instruments, voices) often recorded @ 44.1k or 48k or 88. 2k or 96k @24 bit - so a final mix @ 24 bit isn't a reduction. (Its simply a continuation of the recording session's bit rate)

The clients wouldn't want a Hi Res version for "marketing purposes' (as you cynically state above) - they would want it to offer superior sounding hi-res versions.

And I am out.

Good day gentlemen.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Come to my place do the test here witness it. Video it lol. I have a njce place plenty of audio toys to look at.
do you guys know what stuff I have here ?

 

[gregorio]

[1] I am not sure if you are trying to insult me with that last paragraph, (laughable if so)
[1a] but to let you know, I was a 25+ year, career, recording studio audio engineer professional.
[2] Mixes these days aren't 'reduced' to 24 bit. The individual 'tracks' (instruments, voices) often recorded @ 44.1k or 48k or 88. 2k or 96k @24 bit - so a final mix @ 24 bit isn't a reduction
[3] The clients wouldn't want a Hi Res version for "marketing purposes' (as you cynically state above) - they would want it to offer superior sounding hi-res versions.
[4] And I am out.
[4a] Good day gentlemen.

1. I wasn't sure either but after your last post, I'm more inclined to think it should have been!! See point #2 below for example.
1a. It's irrelevant but "just to let you know", I've been a recording studio professional for nearly 30 years, in some of the world's top recording studios with some of the top artists, I've also authored and taught a university degree in the subject. I could go on but as it said, it's irrelevant to the actual facts!

2. Oh dear, clearly you do not know/understand some of the basic facts of engineering! Digital mixes these days (and indeed for the last 25+ years) are NEVER made at 24bit. The professional mix environment today and for the last decade or so is 64bit float, prior to that (from the mid/late 1990s) it was 32bit float in digital mixers or 56bit fixed (in the case of the ubiquitous Pro Tools), even my very first personal digital mix environment (in 1992) was 28bit. Therefore, a final mix @ 24 bit MUST be a reduction! As this is taught even in introductory courses to DAWs and digital mixing, how is it possible that a 25+ year professional music/sound engineer doesn't know this?

3. Clients who actually know anything about recording resolution (and admittedly many of them don't) do want a Hi res version for purely maketing purposes because they know there is no audible difference. As a professional engineer, it would be almost unbelievable/unconscionable that you've never done any controlled listening tests?

4. Probably a wise move. Your "appeal to authority", against some basic engineering facts and against a body of reliable scientific evidence, won't work here in the sound Science subforum and is unlikely to end well!
4a. And a good day to you.

G

 

[gregorio]

[1] Come to my place do the test here witness it. Video it lol.
[2] I have a njce place plenty of audio toys to look at.
[3] do you guys know what stuff I have here ?

1. Why do I need to come to your place to witness either faulty equipment or a faulty listening test and personal expectation bias, when I've already witnessed those things numerous times?

2. Maybe that's your problem? Instead of looking at your audio toys, maybe you should try only listening to them!

3. I've got no idea what stuff you have but likewise, you've got no idea what stuff I have. So how do you know my stuff is subpar (or that my listening skills are)? Not that it's even slightly relevant but it's very unlikely your place is as "nice" as mine or that you have as many audio "toys" and it's definitely not as nice or has as many audio toys as many of the places I've spent considerable time in!

G

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Thanks for your post above I never knew there were higher bit depth rates. If I may why do I perceive a lower noise floor at my place ? I’m not saying it is but seems so. Also 16 bit depth does seem to have air like noise at times ? I have tracks at 44.2 16 and same tracks at 88.2 24. 24 does seem to have a perception of blacker back ground. I wish redbook was this rate

 

[ALRAINBOW]

1. Why do I need to come to your place to witness either faulty equipment or a faulty listening test and personal expectation bias, when I've already witnessed those things numerous times?

2. Maybe that's your problem? Instead of looking at your audio toys, maybe you should try only listening to them!

3. I've got no idea what stuff you have but likewise, you've got no idea what stuff I have. So how do you know my stuff is subpar (or that my listening skills are)? Not that it's even slightly relevant but it's very unlikely your place is as "nice" as mine or that you have as many audio "toys" and it's definitely not as nice or has as many audio toys as many of the places I've spent considerable time in!

G

Bro it’s a kind jester only bring stuff to measure tell all I’m nuts or damn there is something going on it’s all I mean. Don’t get mad

 

[chef8489]

Thanks for your post above I never knew there were higher bit depth rates. If I may why do I perceive a lower noise floor at my place ? I’m not saying it is but seems so. Also 16 bit depth does seem to have air like noise at times ? I have tracks at 44.2 16 and same tracks at 88.2 24. 24 does seem to have a perception of blacker back ground. I wish redbook was this rate

Because you have it in your mind that what you hear is real. If you did a properly held double blind test it would prove otherwise. They are identical within the hearing spectrum.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

a final mix @ 24 bit isn't a reduction. (Its simply a
continuation of the recording session's bit rate)

Bit DEPTH, bit DEPTH,

smh God I HATE digital audio!

 

[Pro-Jules]

1. I wasn't sure either but after your last post, I'm more inclined to think it should have been!! See point #2 below for example.
1a. It's irrelevant but "just to let you know", I've been a recording studio professional for nearly 30 years, in some of the world's top recording studios with some of the top artists, I've also authored and taught a university degree in the subject. I could go on but as it said, it's irrelevant to the actual facts!

2. Oh dear, clearly you do not know/understand some of the basic facts of engineering! Digital mixes these days (and indeed for the last 25+ years) are NEVER made at 24bit. The professional mix environment today and for the last decade or so is 64bit float, prior to that (from the mid/late 1990s) it was 32bit float in digital mixers or 56bit fixed (in the case of the ubiquitous Pro Tools), even my very first personal digital mix environment (in 1992) was 28bit. Therefore, a final mix @ 24 bit MUST be a reduction! As this is taught even in introductory courses to DAWs and digital mixing, how is it possible that a 25+ year professional music/sound engineer doesn't know this?

3. Clients who actually know anything about recording resolution (and admittedly many of them don't) do want a Hi res version for purely maketing purposes because they know there is no audible difference. As a professional engineer, it would be almost unbelievable/unconscionable that you've never done any controlled listening tests?

4. Probably a wise move. Your "appeal to authority", against some basic engineering facts and against a body of reliable scientific evidence, won't work here in the sound Science subforum and is unlikely to end well!
4a. And a good day to you.

G

You are twisting things.

I was referring to 24 bit sound files. Which are a very standard music recording format.

Your 64 bit, 32bit, 56 bit Mix + (I know the person who discovered this and outed Pro Tools on it) float argument is all a warped smokescreen as those numbers relate to the mix engine architecture - NOT the format of the recorded sound files.

A mastering session of analog (Let's say classical) recordings captured at 24 bit 96k (in whatever 64 or 32 bit floating point mix engine architecture) that produced a 96k 24 bit hi res product - would sound better than its 44.1k 16 bit cd version. It wouldn't be simply be for marketing.
It would sound different. Very likely better.

Are you declaring the hi res movement (Qobuz, Tidal, HD Tracks etc) as bogus?

 

[bigshot]

I am not sure if you are trying to insult me with that last paragraph, (laughable if so) but to let you know, I was a 25+ year, career, recording studio audio engineer professional.

Then perhaps you have worked with Gregorio or maybe me.

By the way... yes, the HiRez audio movement is bogus. Higher bit rates only contain information that is inaudible in normal home playback. Greater response and a lower noise floor are only needed for mixing. For playback, a CD can contain everything you can possibly hear.

At the end of every mix, I do a bounce down to 16/44.1 and check it against the sound coming off the board. In 35 years, I've never heard any difference. If I did, I would throw up a red flag and we would try to figure out what was wrong with the bounce down.

 

[Pro-Jules]

That may be the limitation of your hearing. You don't speak for me though.

 

[Pro-Jules]

You say

The HiRez audio movement is bogus. Higher bit rates only contain information that is inaudible in normal home playback. Greater response and a lower noise floor are only needed for mixing. For playback, a CD can contain everything you can possibly hear.
.

Only needed?

Can contain?

So a hifi / music enthusiast should only maintain a "normal" playback system?

Not one where higher bit rate information is audible?

Should only people like yourself have access to playback systems for higher bit rates? Or should they only be allowed for professionals mixing?

I think you are trolling us anyway, this sentence is pure gibberish!

Higher bit rates only contain information that is inaudible in normal home playback..

What is ‘normal’ home playback? My home hifi playback d/a converter handles files up to 192k 24bit. It's in my living room next to the TV. Is that not allowed?
When I play high bit rate audio - its audible!

Definitely trolling. V funny though! Bravo!