[Davesrose]

No it does not! My OP assumes a low res image has fewer bits than a hi-res image and that the difference in resolution can be visually discerned. There are obviously fewer images today of such low res which are so easily discernible than there were in 2009 but I’d still expect most readers today to have experienced this and therefore understand/appreciate the example.

For the umpteenth time, it’s got nothing to do with HDR and I’ve never even mentioned HDR!!

G

This is your exact words: " It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth..". Bit depth is completely independant of resolution. Netflix, for example has a limited number of 1080P titles that's HDR. Cameras have always had a RAW image format that's higher bit depth than 8bit (and have had all sorts of resolution). Again, consumers might not have known about HDR when the OP was written, but there was also a proportion that have only known images to be 8bit per channel. There have been a portion of people (millennials and gen Z) who have never used an OS that is below 8bpc, or internet that's not broadband that required uncompressed images to have lower bit depths.

Also, RE resolution that's easily discernible...this isn't always true. It's not a coincidence that when TVs were becoming larger than 32", resolutions were increasing to HD. Perceptual detail is also discernible based on the resolution of display and viewing distance.

 

[gregorio]

This is your exact words: " It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth..". Bit depth is completely independant of resolution.

No, that is not my exact words! Here are my exact words:

It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality. This supposition is further enforced by the fact that the term 'resolution' is often applied to bit depth and obviously more resolution means higher quality.

Clearly you failed to read (or understand) the last sentence above!

G

 

[Davesrose]

Clearly you failed to read (or understand) the last sentence above!

G

Then back then you also confused resolution with bit depth!!

 

[gregorio]

Then back then you also confused resolution with bit depth!!

Thanks for proving that in fact you did not understand what I stated!

Again, I stated: “the term 'resolution' is often applied to bit depth”, I did NOT state that the term ‘resolution’ Should be applied to bit depth, just that many people “often” do. In fact, the rest of the OP effectively explains that this ‘resolution’ isn’t really resolution, it’s just dynamic range (which can’t be heard). I don’t see how you didn’t understand that, as so many others clearly did.

G

 

[Davesrose]

Thanks for proving that in fact you did not understand what I stated!

Again, I stated: “the term 'resolution' is often applied to bit depth”, I did NOT state that the term ‘resolution’ Should be applied to bit depth, just that many people “often” do. In fact, the rest of the OP effectively explains that this ‘resolution’ isn’t really resolution, it’s just dynamic range (which can’t be heard). I don’t see how you didn’t understand that, as so many others clearly did.

G

Except resolution was not applied to bit depth in 2009!! Once again, back then all images were 8bpc no matter what resolution (SD and HD were both 8bpc). You continue to not understand that video is not the same as audio in this regard. Absolutely no one was talking about bit depth when it came to the difference of quality between DVD and blu-ray. The only main folks concerned with dynamic range back then was photgraphers: who were wanting better dynamic range for exposure lattiude. I don't understand how you still don't understand that dynamic range is independent of resolution...

 

[Vamp898]

It is not either or. You can use 192 kHz when recording bats and 44.1 kHz when recording a cellist.

You can, nobody said something contrary.

First of all, nobody uses 44.1kHz when recording, like at all. You use 48kHz because 44.1kHz can trigger a lot of issues while recording. You either use 48kHz or 88.2kHz, but never 44.1kHz.

But you use one setting for the project and you stick with this setting. You don't recording everything with different settings, that would be the biggest hassle ever.

You either use 96kHz or 192kHz for the whole project and stick to it.

It is about how perfect the filters have to be to be perfect for human ears. Those who make money selling hi-res music think those filters are not perfect enough. Sound engineers in general think they are perfect enough. Go figure...

No, they don't. I don't know where you got this statement, but they don't. Even Wikipedia says don't do that as the edge cases are, where filters perform worst. You wan't some headroom to not hit the limit of the filter.

Hi-Res Music is, most of the time, mixed and mastered different and that is where most of the money goes to. Yes i know, they advertise with better sound quality and hide the fact, that you could have the exact same sound quality in Audio CD quality, still, at least in my experience, if you pay for Hi-Res Audio, you get an version that sounds different and so its not a total rip off. Because it sounds better in general. They are mixed less loud, with more dynamic/less compression and so on. So its an improvement.

And the price difference is laughable. I mean, common, whats next? Cars use more fuel than advertised? Tomatoes are not as juicy as it says on the box?

Yes, in theory filters should be infinitely long, which sounds a really long time, but in practice short filters (that are used) can get extremely close to the perfection.

As you're neither stating a runtime, nor what "close to perfection" means, thats just a phrase and nothing more. I don't know your personal opinion on what is close to perfection, so there is nothing to argue here.

In my opinion these things are the least of the problems and challenges in music production. I would be much more concerned about the ability of the drummer to play well and the placements of mics etc. not to mention how the music is mixed and mastered. It is a manufactured problem, manufactured by hi-res sellers.

You see, that is the point. In your opinion. But you don't work for major studios so sadly, no one cares about your opinoin.

Apply for a job there and tell them how wrong they are doing things i am sure you'll have a work contract with Sony Music in no time.

Even if you want to avoid this "problem", using 88.2 kHz or 96 kHz would solve it. No need to use 192 kHz.

Well if 192kHz is the default output of your digital interface, you're using 192kHz., Why take the risk? Whats the advantage?

Resample from what to what

96kHz (with LPF, of course) to 44.1kHz

and why?

You're having a stroke? Should i call a doctor? Re-read what we were talking about, you might get why.

I am not here to give financial advice to record companies. I am here to tell what the science tells. Recording at 192 kHz may make financial sense (I am not an entrepreneur myself and I understand nothing about commercial aspects), but it doesn't make sense otherwise.

Can you please show us your Doctors degree or at least your Masters degree first? We need some proof that you actually know what you're talking about.

 

[bigshot]

Here we go again!

 

[Vamp898]

Yeah i think this thread should be closed by an mod.

There never was an myth to be exploded in the first place and the initial post did not explode it, even if there would have been one.

This whole discussion is just nonsense.

 

[bigshot]

It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. It's clear you're trolling. There's nothing to be gained from you with that attitude. You should be closed.

 

[gregorio]

Except resolution was not applied to bit depth in 2009!!

Not only have you proven that you failed to understand but you continue to fail even after it’s been clearly explained!!

Why do you think audio was marketed as “Hi-Res”? We were using >16bit for recording about a decade before it became available to consumers but it was never called Hi-Res. That is a term invented by marketers far later, when it did become available to consumers, to take advantage of the fact that most consumers were aware (albeit somewhat incorrectly) that more bits/bit depth = higher resolution with images and there was an obvious visual difference.

First of all, nobody uses 44.1kHz when recording, like at all.

Where on earth did you get that from? Not only are there people (professionals) who use 44.1kHz when recording but it’s still common.

You use 48kHz because 44.1kHz can trigger a lot of issues while recording. You either use 48kHz or 88.2kHz, but never 44.1kHz.

What issues does it cause and why don’t we hear those issues on recordings made before the late 1990’s, when higher than 48kHz sampling rates became available for recording? We often use 48kHz for a different purpose, because 48kHz has been the default sample rate for film and TV sound for 30+ years and 44.1kHz (or 88.2kHz) was not supported.

Hi-Res Music is, most of the time, mixed and mastered different and that is where most of the money goes to.

Hi-res music is never mixed differently as far as I’m aware. Virtually always it’s mastered the same as well, up to the point that the different formats are created and then sometimes additional compression is applied to the standard/lower res versions.

I don't know your personal opinion on what is close to perfection, so there is nothing to argue here.

I can’t answer for @71 dB by my personal opinion is where the difference between the theoretically perfect sinc function and the sinc functions that can actually be achieved in practice is down at around -160dB and can’t even be resolved/reproduced by any audio system, let alone be audible.

Well if 192kHz is the default output of your digital interface, you're using 192kHz.,

I don’t think he meant that 192kHz is the default output of a professional ADC but that there are no longer any DAC chips available for pro-audio ADCs that don’t have a maximum sample rate lower than 192kHz. There is no default output of a professional ADC, it typically sets it’s sample rate according to the settings chosen in the DAW controlling it/them.

[1] Why take the risk? [2] Whats the advantage?

1. What risk? The only risk is that the distributor will at a later date want to market a hi-res version but that can be easily achieved if desired.

2. 4x less storage space/bandwidth required, 4x more processing power available, 4x more channels available, 4x more I/O available, faster rendering, less concern of including inaudible/ultrasonic freq content which could cause issues (IMD for example) and typically greater alias rejection. Against all these advantages, what’s the advantage of recording at 192kHz? Answer: None at all for music recording, except potentially marketing! It can sometimes/rarely be useful in sound effects design for TV/Film though.

But you don't work for major studios … Show us your Doctors degree or at least your Masters degree first?

Do you work for a major studio, have you ever even been in a major studio? What about your masters degree or doctorate? If not, then how is your demand anything other than hypocritical?

There never was a myth to be exploded in the first place and the initial post did not explode it …

If there were never a myth then hi-res audio would never have become an audiophile format and I (and others) would not have written rebuttals of it!

Honestly, where did you get all the nonsense above from? Is it just regurgitated marketing BS or did you invent it yourself?

G

 

[bigshot]

A lot of people use “bit rate” when they really mean “data rate”.

 

[71 dB]

First of all, nobody uses 44.1kHz when recording, like at all. You use 48kHz because 44.1kHz can trigger a lot of issues while recording. You either use 48kHz or 88.2kHz, but never 44.1kHz.

Nonsense. 44.1 kHz is widely used in music production unless there is a "need" (hi-res marketing) to use higher while 48 kHz is used in video/film productions as a standard. I would even say that the less you know about sample rates the more likely you are to use higher sampling frequencies thinking they provide something extra.

No, they don't. I don't know where you got this statement, but they don't. Even Wikipedia says don't do that as the edge cases are, where filters perform worst. You wan't some headroom to not hit the limit of the filter.

There are effects that benefit from higher sample rates, but those effects can and do use internal oversampling.

Hi-Res Music is, most of the time, mixed and mastered different and that is where most of the money goes to. Yes i know, they advertise with better sound quality and hide the fact, that you could have the exact same sound quality in Audio CD quality, still, at least in my experience, if you pay for Hi-Res Audio, you get an version that sounds different and so its not a total rip off. Because it sounds better in general. They are mixed less loud, with more dynamic/less compression and so on. So its an improvement.

Well, if you downsample those Hi-res files properly to 44.1/16 they will sound exactly the same.

Can you please show us your Doctors degree or at least your Masters degree first? We need some proof that you actually know what you're talking about.

I have a Masters degree from the Helsinki University of Technology (known as Aalto University these days). I won't be showing my degree here publictly and even if I did it doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about. What I write here does demonstrate my knowledge and understanding. Those here who know this stuff can verify my knowledge and possible even find areas of improvement. I am educated enough to know there is always more to learn.

 

[Vamp898]

Nonsense. 44.1 kHz is widely used in music production unless there is a "need" (hi-res marketing) to use higher while 48 kHz is used in video/film productions as a standard. I would even say that the less you know about sample rates the more likely you are to use higher sampling frequencies thinking they provide something extra.

I don't no one single Sound Studio that records in 44.1kHz and i know a lot of them, a _lot_. And afaik every big one that produced an important album.

I am pretty sure you're just lying. Name me one important sound studio that records in 44.1kHz

 

[vergesslich22]

I record in 45kHz, just a bit more to be on the safe side.

 

[gregorio]

I don't no one single Sound Studio that records in 44.1kHz and i know a lot of them, a _lot_.

Neither do I, all the sound studios I know record mainly at 48kHz and very occasionally at 96kHz or 192kHz for certain SFX design work (as already mentioned). However, the context here is music and music studios, not so much sound studios and all the top music studios will record at whatever sample rate the clients request, including 44.1kHz!

G