[1] You are twisting things.
[2] I was referring to 24 bit sound files. Which are a very standard music recording format.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] Are you declaring the hi res movement (Qobuz, Tidal, HD Tracks etc) as bogus?
1. No I'm not, I'm just stating the facts.
2. Yes, 24bit is the standard sound file recording format but of course, unless you're recording direct to disk, then those recorded tracks have to be mixed!
3. "
A warped smokescreen", what are you talking about? You stated "
a final mix @ 24bit", is this final mix you're talking about in fact not mixed? If it is mixed (in the digital domain), then obviously it's mixed within the "
mix engine architecture" and the bit depth of that mix is whatever the bit depth of the final summing bus is (IE. 64bit float or in older versions of Pro Tools, 56bit fixed). If you want to record that mix as a 24bit sound file, then obviously you have to reduce the bit depth of the mix from 64bit float (or 56bit fixed) to 24bit. Again, this is digital mixing 101, how is it possible that a 25+ year pro wouldn't know this?
4. So are you admitting that as a 25+ year pro, you've never done any controlled listening tests? Effectively, you're claiming that you can hear artefacts that are either around -120dBFS (which are not reproducible in the first place) or above 20kHz. So, you're not only contradicting the well established and accepted science of human hearing thresholds but the demonstrated science of actual DBTs (such as the Meyer & Moran study for example) of hi-res vs CD and what evidence do you present to substantiate your extraordinary claim? That you were a sound/music engineer who's apparently never done any controlled listening tests?
5. You're joking, of course I am. Have you not read the original post of this thread? If you are/were a pro sound engineer then you should know it anyway!
[1] So a hifi / music enthusiast should only maintain a "normal" playback system? Not one where higher bit rate information is audible?
[2] Should only people like yourself have access to playback systems for higher bit rates? Or should they only be allowed for professionals mixing?
[3] What is ‘normal’ home playback?
[3a] My home hifi playback d/a converter handles files up to 192k 24bit.
[4] When I play high bit rate audio - its audible! Definitely trolling. V funny though! Bravo!
1. As higher than 16bit is not audible, what is a non-normal playback system? Some magical system capable of more than 120dB dynamic range and changing a listener's physiology so that it's not painful/damaging?
2. Anyone can have higher bit depth systems if they want, they're just not going to get any audible benefit unless they're using that system as professional mixing engineers do, EG. Generating substantial quantisation error by using numerous digital processors or by significantly deviating from appropriate gain staging, which of course is why professional digital mix environments use a 64bit architecture in the first place!
3. Normal home playback covers a range of scenarios within "reasonable" playback levels (IE. Not painful/damaging).
3a. No it doesn't! Sure, your DAC can handle a 24bit file FORMAT but it cannot "handle" 24 bits of audio data, unless you have a magic DAC that breaks the laws of physics?
4. Again, all the above should be known by a first year recording student, let alone by a 25+ year professional! Plus, just repeating the same assertion that contradicts the science and providing no reliable evidence to support your extraordinary claim/assertion is pretty much the definition of trolling here (or in science in general). So who is "definitely trolling" here? Hypocrisy at it's finest, V. funny though, bravo!
[1] So what, in your mind, is good about playing them exactly? (If it's not the superior sound of them!) [And]
[2] You say his-res is for higher fidelity sound, then flip to the garbage mantra I read from some here... “but it's not suitable for general listening".
I put it to you that this community is largely not the general listening population as many own equipment suitable for distinguishing the “higher fidelity” you referred to. therefore hi-res isn’t a sonic waste of time or bogus.
Further, as this is an audio reproduction enthusiast discussion website can we retire the snooty “general listening” arguments please?
And again, basic information already covered in this thread and that any first year music/sound engineering student should already know, actually most first semester students should know! But as you apparently don't know:
1. What "
is good about playing them" is potentially a different master. A master designed for at least decent equipment in at least a decent listening environment, rather than a more compressed (for example) master better suited to a wider range of equipment and noisier listening environments.
HOWEVER, even masters designed ONLY for high quality playback systems/environments rarely have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB, which is about 1,000 times less than the 16bit format allows! Again, how is it possible, as a 25+ year professional, that you don't already know this? Unfortunately though, certain labels/distributors choose to only distribute these masters in hi-res formats (for marketing/pricing reasons), rather than distribute them in 16bit format.
2. All the false assertions you make here are refuted by the point above!
G