Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Davesrose]

Where does Wiki say it’s a “common term”? You just made that up!

Sure one *may refer* to post processing in terms of audio but generally one wouldn’t/shouldn’t, because of the reasons given and that the use of a “processor” has a specific meaning in audio creation and are used extensively in mixing and mastering but rarely or never in music editing.

You have unwittingly but very effectively proven my point! Your claim is false but your response was entirely based on the semantics of what may be referred to, which incidentally demonstrates you do not understand how the terminology is actually used in practice. Instead of arguing semantics, why don’t you support your claim by giving an example of where/when a 96k sampling rate would be useful when editing music?

G

I'm sorry, most would assume it's pertinent to assumed definitions of "post-processing" (of which Audio Editing Software is one).

I'm glad that you admit "Sure one *may refer* to post processing in terms of audio"....even though you want to try to defend that mp3s are common sources for your own work, I would have appreciated that you admit that you commonly work with uncompressed files. Really, you just keep showing now with how disingenuous you are to try to prove a point. If you really are involved with professional productions, you're not going to be concerned with mp3 sources and are going to be involved with high quality audio sources. Just as with my experience with video: we're running high quality video that's not the same specs as certain home distribution. You're now asking me to provide the best example of when a 96k file would be best: of course I can't since I'm not versed with audio editing. But this is also a prime example of how we're going to get to the inevitable "I don't understand your reasoning, so you're wrong". I'm not going to be smug and ask you a photography question you can't answer. Before you were put on the spot about "post-processing" you did say 96k was a common file for music editing, so I will hold it to you.

 

[castleofargh]

 

[bigshot]

I think you two are really perfect for each other. I’m glad you’ve become friends.

 

[Davesrose]

I think you two are really perfect for each other. I’m glad you’ve become friends.

LOL....if gregorio wasn't so smug with his own terms, I think we could have a good exchange. Even though in some threads he's said he doesn't care about the cinematography end of movies, I'm open to the audio production aspects of a good production.

 

[gregorio]

I'm sorry, most would assume it's pertinent to assumed definitions of "post-processing" (of which Audio Editing Software is one).

At least you said you’re sorry but even though you admit to assumption you still don’t seem to understand why you should be sorry.

I would have appreciated that you admit that you commonly work with uncompressed files.

That’s obviously not true because I’ve already stated a preference for uncompressed files and you have not appreciated it, on the contrary still you’re arguing and using a straw man argument at that! Your claim was that hi-res (>44.1k/48k) were useful during editing/audio post processing!

If you really are involved with professional productions, you're not going to be concerned with mp3 sources and are going to be involved with high quality audio sources.

Hang on, you’re going to lecture me on “if you really are involved with professional productions” yet you admit:

I'm not versed with audio editing.

How very audiophile of you. Your claim must be correct because you don’t know anything. Well done!

For the record, your assertion is false. If YOU had any professional experience with music studio work or audio post, then you would know that we sometimes receive overdubs or other source material from the talent and others in mp3 or other lossy formats. Again, you’re just making up claims/assertions based on assumption and self-admitted ignorance and then defending those claims with hypocrisy!

Just as with my experience with video:

And again! As you are self-admittedly “not versed in audio editing” how on earth do you know it’s “just as with your experience with video”? The answer of course is that you do NOT know, you’re just making up a false assertion based on assumption and ignorance!

You're now asking me to provide the best example of when a 96k file would be best:

That also is false! I did not ask you to provide “the best example” I asked for AN example, so ANY example to support your claim will do. But you haven’t, all you’ve provided is more semantics, deflections and hypocrisy.

I'm not going to be smug and ask you a photography question you can't answer.

That wouldn’t be “smug”, it would be “stupid” because I have not made any claims about photography in this thread and this is not a photography forum!

Before you were put on the spot about "post-processing"

I wasn’t put on the spot, you were! And, you still don’t seem to understand the difference between “may refer” and “common term” or the fact that it’s just a deflection from your false claim.

you did say 96k was a common file for music editing, so I will hold it to you.

Fine but that’s just ANOTHER straw man argument. Provide any example of where 96k is a useful audio file format for editing! Otherwise “I will hold” you to the fact that you don’t know of any and that you just made up your false claim based on ignorance and false assumption!

LOL....if gregorio wasn't so smug with his own terms, I think we could have a good exchange.

The terms I’ve used are “Recording, editing, mixing, mastering and audio post”, where on earth do you get the idea that these are my “own terms”? All of them were standard terms long before I was born and as they are obviously not “my own terms”, how can I be smug with them? Again though, you are arguing semantics using ad hominem, LOL indeed!

I'm open to the audio production aspects of a good production.

How is arguing from ignorance being “open to the audio production aspects”?

G

 

[bigshot]

Line by line replies are so... helpful. They just exude camaraderie and respect. They encourage pleasant discourse between peers. They make me feel all warm inside.

 

[gregorio]

Line by line replies are so... helpful. They just exude camaraderie and respect. They encourage pleasant discourse between peers. They make me feel all warm inside.

I’m responding to a bunch of individual points/assertions. If you don’t like the way I’ve chosen to format my post, no one is forcing or even asking you to read it.

G

 

[bigshot]

I’m responding

You aren't responding at all. You're ignoring what he said and engaging in your own arguments and semantic quibbles.

to a bunch of individual

They aren't individual. They are complete phrases in complete sentences in complete paragraphs, organized in a way to state a premise, back it up with supporting examples and tying it all up at the end with a summation. That is how you communicate ideas convincingly, not by dicing them up into a "bunch of individual".

points/assertions.

Which each requires its own ad hominem and blanket dismissal!

If you don’t like the way I’ve chosen to format my post,

How can you tell? Is my poker face slipping?

no one is forcing

Nor could anyone. This is just an Internet forum. It isn't a place to try to lord it over other people or exert dominance (irony).

or even asking

Because asking would require saying "please" and no one wants to do that!

you to read it.

That sounds like the sentence of a non-English speaker. This isn't conjugated properly for the imperative mode!

 

[Davesrose]

I'll post again, since gregorio does not want to acknowledge common knowledge of "post processing"

 

[gregorio]

You aren't responding at all. …

Your post was Bullsh*t. Is that short enough not to tax your reading abilities?

I'll post again, since gregorio does not want to acknowledge common knowledge of "post processing"

Again, nice demonstration of this time not understanding the difference between common knowledge and actual usage. Keep it up.

You made the claim that 96k was useful for editing (or whatever you incorrectly want to call it) but you just deflect and cannot provide even a single example of it being useful. Ergo, bullsh*t claim!

G

 

[Davesrose]

My original post was that hi-res audio isn't needed with audio reproduction, but is useful with "audio post processing": drawing an analogy to how image and video creators need higher end source files for editing. I'm really surprised that you keep on with this "Bullsh*t", and claiming you won't use high end files with your own editing.

 

[bigshot]

The original point is ephemeral. Forget about it. It’s dead and buried! The point has been shattered into million little pieces and we’re using dirty words, straw men and semantics to further deconstruct and obliterate any shred of context whatsoever!

 

[Ryokan]

I come here to learn from people who have much more knowledge than me on these subjects but the antagonism from one poster is just getting worse.

 

[danadam]

My original post was that hi-res audio isn't needed with audio reproduction, but is useful with "audio post processing"

Was this never posted here? Or are you saying it's wrong?
Dan Worrall - "Samplerates: the higher the better, right?"

(crude summary, there are plugins that benefit from higher bandwidth, but it's better to enable oversampling in those plugins rather than run the whole project at the higher sample rate)

 

[WoodyLuvr]

Was this never posted here? Or are you saying it's wrong?
Dan Worrall - "Samplerates: the higher the better, right?"

(crude summary, there are plugins that benefit from higher bandwidth, but it's better to enable oversampling in those plugins rather than run the whole project at the higher sample rate)

Very interesting; thank you for sharing this. Extremely helpful.