[gregorio]

The difference is not just the dynamic range, so you maybe should not focus too much on that. Its the overall sound that is different.

Often the difference (if there is one) is just dynamic range. Sometimes it might also be EQ or less likely something else, none of which can’t be achieved audibly transparently with 16/44.

But beside that, why would you release the audiophile targeted Version in 16/44?

Because anything higher than that makes no audible difference. However, it does make a difference to the marketing and to the price you can charge if you can fool audiophiles into believing that marketing!

Why take the additional step and convert it? If you record in 24/96, it makes much more sense to just export it and be done.

And how exactly can you “just export it”? Regardless of what bit depth you record at, all professional DAWs mix/master at 64bit float and you cannot export a 64bit float as wav or any other common audio file format because they don’t support it. In fact no professional DAW or digital mixer as far as I’m aware has ever mixed at 24bit. So there is no choice but to “take the additional step and convert it”! The only potential question is what to convert it to.

Much of the rest of your post is partially incorrect but in any case, all of it could be covered by having two different 16/44 versions, say a standard and a high dynamic range version.

G

 

[Vamp898]

Often the difference (if there is one) is just dynamic range. Sometimes it might also be EQ or less likely something else, none of which can’t be achieved audibly transparently with 16/44.

Because anything higher than that makes no audible difference. However, it does make a difference to the marketing and to the price you can charge if you can fool audiophiles into believing that marketing!

And how exactly can you “just export it”? Regardless of what bit depth you record at, all professional DAWs mix/master at 64bit float and you cannot export a 64bit float as wav or any other common audio file format because they don’t support it. In fact no professional DAW or digital mixer as far as I’m aware has ever mixed at 24bit. So there is no choice but to “take the additional step and convert it”! The only potential question is what to convert it to.

Much of the rest of your post is partially incorrect but in any case, all of it could be covered by having two different 16/44 versions, say a standard and a high dynamic range version.

G

Some use 32bit floats but yes, a lot DAW use 64bit float. Getting that to 16bit is no hassle, but getting the frequency down is a hassle.

Going from 96kHz to 44.1kHz is extra effort. And even though DAW use 32bit or 64bit float for internal processing, most DIs don't do that. Most DIs record at 24bit/96kHz and that is why you choose 24bit when exporting in general. The bit-rate is no issue, you have to choose that anway as you correctly stated.

But you do not choose the frequency when exporting, it always stays the same from beginning to end. And if its set to 96kHz, you export at 96kHz. If it is set to 192kHz, you let it there.

It is an additional step you have to take intentionally to lower the frequency and then, it is lowered in the project! you have to be very carefull to not hit the save button.

That is why you always export at 96 or 192 and do the conversion with an additional step after the DAW. The Project file always stays at the same frequency so whenever you re-export for whatever reason, you have to do the conversion again.

If you release digital, you, of course, safe this additional step. Its a waste of time. As everything goes digital, it is rather 16/44 that will die than the Hi-Res Formats.

 

[gregorio]

Getting that to 16bit is no hassle, but getting the frequency down is a hassle.

No it’s not, if anything getting to 16bit is more hassle as you have to choose a noise shaping dither but the “hassle” is literally a couple of seconds.

Going from 96kHz to 44.1kHz is extra effort.

The extra effort of clicking an additional check box?

And even though DAW use 32bit or 64bit float for internal processing, most DIs don't do that.

What’s a “Dls”?

But you do not choose the frequency when exporting

Of course you do.

it always stays the same from beginning to end.

No, it rarely stays the same. We commonly use plugins that oversample.

That is why you always export at 96 or 192 and do the conversion with an additional step after the DAW.

No, you can export/bounce with whatever settings (sample rate, bit depth, dither) you want from the DAW or pass it through to another program.

I don’t see all the extra hassle/step of selecting one more checkbox when you’ve got to convert and select other checkboxes anyway.

G

 

[71 dB]

But you do not choose the frequency when exporting, it always stays the same from beginning to end. And if its set to 96kHz, you export at 96kHz. If it is set to 192kHz, you let it there.

People do things differently. I make my music at 44.1 kHz sampling rate and when it is mastered I actually need to make a version upsampled to 48 kHz sample rate for uploading the music to Soundcloud, because they recommend it. I'd never bother with 96 kHz let alone 192 kHz sample rates, but I know some people do and that's their business.

 

[Ryokan]

I’m not sure if you’re referring to me? I only criticised Mozart in reference to my own personal tastes and finding his works generally somewhat predictable (compared to later period works) but I have the utmost respect and appreciation for his work.

Is that the issue Salieri had with his music?
There is no historical evidence to support modern assertions that the two were anything more than friendly rivals.

 

[gregorio]

Is that the issue Salieri had with his music?

No, it’s a general trait of the classical music period and because there’s almost a sort of perfection in how Mozart executed the “rules”/guidelines of that period, it is for me a little too predictable. Hayden is another example of the period and although he doesn’t generally quite reach the levels of perfection of Mozart (IMHO), he is very formulaic which for me is also quite predictable and of course Salieri was also subject to those rules of the period. However, this is entirely with the benefit of over 2 centuries of analysis and hindsight, for those at the time, it was relatively new and cutting edge.

There is no historical evidence to support modern assertions that the two were anything more than friendly rivals.

Indeed. The actual evidence indicates that Mozart resented Salieri at times, for getting jobs that Mozart also applied for, but not that Salieri had any ill will towards Mozart. Salieri voiced his appreciation of Mozart’s skill more than once and later the two actually collaborated on a composition. The rumours of Salieri’s murderous hatred towards Mozart started decades after Mozart’s death and appears to be due to the rise of extremist German nationalism in the early/mid C19th (and their resentment at Italian composers’ influence on music). That propaganda/rumour was resurrected (and enhanced) in the 1984 film “Amadeus”, solely to add an intriguing plot line.

G

 

[Ryokan]

No, it’s a general trait of the classical music period and because there’s almost a sort of perfection in how Mozart executed the “rules”/guidelines of that period, it is for me a little too predictable. Hayden is another example of the period and although he doesn’t generally quite reach the levels of perfection of Mozart (IMHO), he is very formulaic which for me is also quite predictable and of course Salieri was also subject to those rules of the period. However, this is entirely with the benefit of over 2 centuries of analysis and hindsight, for those at the time, it was relatively new and cutting edge.

A bit like Roman classic sculpture which was closely followed and emulated for centuries, until I guess the renaissance.

Indeed. The actual evidence indicates that Mozart resented Salieri at times, for getting jobs that Mozart also applied for, but not that Salieri had any ill will towards Mozart. Salieri voiced his appreciation of Mozart’s skill more than once and later the two actually collaborated on a composition. The rumours of Salieri’s murderous hatred towards Mozart started decades after Mozart’s death and appears to be due to the rise of extremist German nationalism in the early/mid C19th (and their resentment at Italian composers’ influence on music). That propaganda/rumour was resurrected (and enhanced) in the 1984 film “Amadeus”, solely to add an intriguing plot line.

G

Modern films especially have a lot to answer for and people shouldn't think they know history after watching them, there should be some sort of body regulating how people and events are depicted if they deviate widely from established views based on academic's research.

 

[gregorio]

Modern films especially have a lot to answer for and people shouldn't think they know history after watching them, there should be some sort of body regulating how people and events are depicted if they deviate widely from established views based on academic's research.

People should just realise that unless the films are specifically documentaries, then they’re largely or wholly fictional. A regulating body would never be agreed internationally and would be at least somewhat, if not entirely, unworkable anyway.

G

 

[bigshot]

Haydn's Symphony 94 wasn't predictable!

 

[gregorio]

Haydn's Symphony 94 wasn't predictable!

It was very predictable, apart from just one chord in the Andante movement and even that was entirely predictable melodically, harmonically and rhythmically, only it’s orchestration/volume was a “surprise”.

G

 

[71 dB]

Predictability in music is important for the listener, but of course music can be too predictable (to someone's taste). Without any predictability music would be just random notes like a cat walking on piano keys. Some people might enjoy such music, but most people certainly don't.

Back in the days of Mozart and Haydn people were exposed to significantly less music than people today. They never heard Wagner or Jazz or Ligeti for example. What is predictable to us wasn't so predictable to people living in the 18th century.

--------

Funny, for days I wondered why nobody posts on this forum, because the thread titles don't become bolded to show new posts. Then I noticed people have actually posted here and I wondered why don't the thread titles get bolded anymore? Now when I tried to post this, I finally noticed I was logged out! Took some time to notice/realise that! This forum almost never does log me out by itself, but now it did. Unpredictable!

 

[gregorio]

A bit like Roman classic sculpture which was closely followed and emulated for centuries, until I guess the renaissance.

Incidentally, I wouldn’t personally draw too much of a comparison. Roman classic sculpture was a relatively gradual and small development from previous (Greek and Etruscan) styles, lasted a long time, was then revived in the Renaissance and was a great influence for several more centuries (well into the C19th). While the classical music period was short lived relative to the other main classical music periods, was a relatively sudden and large divergence from previous periods and was never really revived (apart arguably by the relatively small and short lived neo-classical C20th movement but that was really about aesthetic principles rather than compositional techniques/“rules”).

Without any predictability music would be just random notes like a cat walking on piano keys. Some people might enjoy such music, but most people certainly don't.

And some people might enjoy the predictability of classical period music but most people certainly don’t.

Back in the days of Mozart and Haydn people were exposed to significantly less music than people today. They never heard Wagner or Jazz or Ligeti for example. What is predictable to us wasn't so predictable to people living in the 18th century.

Which I already stated.

G

 

[71 dB]

And some people might enjoy the predictability of classical period music but most people certainly don’t.

I have asked people why they don't listen to classical music. Nobody said it's because it is too predictable, but a common reason given was the lack of electric guitars.

Which I already stated.

G

Oh. Sorry. I have been a bit lost with this forum lately...

 

[gregorio]

I have asked people why they don't listen to classical music. Nobody said it's because it is too predictable, but a common reason given was the lack of electric guitars.

I’ve asked people why they don’t listen to classical period music and whilst they almost never mention “predictability” they do almost always mention they find it boring.

G

 

[71 dB]

I’ve asked people why they don’t listen to classical period music and whilst they almost never mention “predictability” they do almost always mention they find it boring.

G

Yeah, I suppose lack of electric guitars makes music boring for many. Another common reason given was the elitism of classical music, especially opera music. If I remember correctly, one person explained to me how to be able to enjoy opera you have to be an old rich woman wearing a mink coat and extravagant jewellery! Weird, because I am a middle aged man who would never wear a mink coat and extravagant jewellery, but I am nevertheless able to enjoy operas...