[bigshot]

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

I work in TV. We always use 48. Our sound effects and music library was ripped from CD 44.1.

 

[71 dB]

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

What sample rates studios use is beyond my knowledge. However, I know that sound engineers who know their craft know that 44.1 kHz is all you need for music productions and are likely to use it unless asked to use higher samplerate for whatever reason. Expensive big productions are likely to use higher samplerate, but there are tons of small artists recording in small studios and even bedrooms. I'm pretty sure 44.1 kHz is a common samplerate in those circles.

 

[bigshot]

Try and hear a dynamic range beyond 16 bit. You’ll incur hearing damage if you try!

I even have a link in my sig file that says bit depth isn’t resolution. It’s just dynamic range, which at 16 bits exceeds what is desirable for listening to with human ears. That was Gregorio’s point and he’s correct.

 

[castleofargh]

Lisa is banned from this thread. Remarks didn’t work, deleting posts didn’t work, I’m moving toward more definitive actions. I’m a live and let live modo, I tolerate more attacks than the rules tell me to because it’s the type of forum that favors heated arguments(it just is). But if all your posts are made with the explicit and constant mission to insult people, go away!

 

[Davesrose]

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.

It's clear you didn't read my post. Once again, in 2009 bit depth with images were not being marketed because SD and HD video are both 8bpc!! My post further said this is a difference between image formats and audio (resolution is independent from bit depth with image formats).

 

[bigshot]

Thanks Castle

 

[gregorio]

Expensive big productions are likely to use higher samplerate, but there are tons of small artists recording in small studios and even bedrooms.

It depends what you mean by “expensive big productions”. The most expensive big productions are almost always film scores, which are most commonly recorded at the standard film rate of 48k, though sometimes at 96k (for marketing purposes). The rest of your post was entirely correct.

It's clear you didn't read my post.

How so? It is clear however that you didn’t read or didn’t understand my post!

Once again, in 2009 bit depth with images were not being marketed because SD and HD video are both 8bpc!!

And once again, that is irrelevant! What IS relevant is that there was/is an obvious visual difference between SD and HD and an equally obvious difference in file size/number of bits, which many at that time (and even today) equate with bit depth.

G

 

[Vamp898]

What sample rates studios use is beyond my knowledge. However, I know that sound engineers who know their craft know that 44.1 kHz is all you need for music productions and are likely to use it unless asked to use higher samplerate for whatever reason. Expensive big productions are likely to use higher samplerate, but there are tons of small artists recording in small studios and even bedrooms. I'm pretty sure 44.1 kHz is a common samplerate in those circles.

Every Digital Interface supports 192kHz/24bit, even the very very cheap entry level ones for garage bands.

I think you somehow missed 20 years^^ its 2023 now, not 2003

 

[71 dB]

Every Digital Interface supports 192kHz/24bit, even the very very cheap entry level ones for garage bands.

I think you somehow missed 20 years^^ its 2023 now, not 2003

Of course they support, but that doesn't mean you have to use it!

 

[Ryokan]

You really have to dot the i's and cross the T's here.

 

[Davesrose]

How so? It is clear however that you didn’t read or didn’t understand my post!

I will repeat. Read this carefully: the bit depths between a SD frame or HD frame are the same. They are both 8bits per color channel. Read this carefully now: I said this is what’s different compared to how audio has been marketed.

And once again, that is irrelevant! What IS relevant is that there was/is an obvious visual difference between SD and HD and an equally obvious difference in file size/number of bits, which many at that time (and even today) equate with bit depth.

G

You say it’s irrelevant now, but your previous post to me even said:

“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.”

You continue to falsely allege there is a difference in bit-depth between SD and HD resolutions (or the OP assumed you’re old enough to remember graphics under 8bpc). Now you’ve got a new claim that it’s obvious to tell the difference between SD and HD. Not always: If you’re watching at a certain distance with a 19” monitor, you can’t tell a difference.

 

[gregorio]

I will repeat. Read this carefully: the bit depths between a SD frame or HD frame are the same.

And I will repeat. Read this carefully: It is irrelevant. Although there’s apparently no point in me saying “read this carefully” because clearly you’re incapable of that!!

You say it’s irrelevant now, but your previous post to me even said:

“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.”

Exactly, which is why it is irrelevant! Duh!

You continue to falsely allege there is a difference in bit-depth between SD and HD resolutions (or the OP assumed you’re old enough to remember graphics under 8bpc).

No I don’t and the OP does not assume that!!! Please at least try to read carefully, or at least stop responding if you can’t!

G

 

[Davesrose]

And I will repeat. Read this carefully: It is irrelevant. Although there’s apparently no point in me saying “read this carefully” because clearly you’re incapable of that!!

Then don't make posts like this claiming there is a relevance! Clearly you're incapable of applying the same standards to yourself about drawing analogies to images, and even understanding basic principles that image resolutions are independent of bit-depth.

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.

 

[gregorio]

Then don't make posts like this claiming there is a relevance!

So you still can’t read carefully AND you continue responding. Where did I claim relevance?

and even understanding basic principles that image resolutions are independent of bit-depth.

The quote you posted to apparently prove your point does not even mention bit-depth, let alone state that bit-depth and resolution are dependent! Have you been drinking?

G

 

[Davesrose]

So you still can’t read carefully AND you continue responding. Where did I claim relevance?

Hello, I've quoted multiple times now about how you've wanted to say there is a relevance comparing resolution with bit depth when it comes to images, but apparently you try to call irrelevant if someone is pointing to facts about digital graphics.

The quote you posted to apparently prove your point does not even mention bit-depth, let alone state that bit-depth and resolution are dependent! Have you been drinking?

G

Are you projecting about how much you've drunk today??

And once again, that is irrelevant! What IS relevant is that there was/is an obvious visual difference between SD and HD and an equally obvious difference in file size/number of bits, which many at that time (and even today) equate with bit depth.

Once again...if there's anything you should learn about SD and HD (when you sober up) is that they have the same bit depth.