Is gregorio ever embarrassed as to how rude he can be …
Making-up false assertions is rude anywhere but it’s even more rude in a science discussion forum because it’s a perversion of science. So in response to that level of rudeness, “No”, I’m not embarrassed in the slightest.
It would be so refreshing if we can have discussions instead of fights.
Indeed it would but of course you’re being hypocritical in the extreme! By making false assertions you have actively encouraged “fights” rather than discussions and by defending those false assertions with fallacies and more false assertions you have virtually guaranteed a fight. If you really preferred a discussion you would have asked a question instead of making a false claim and you wouldn’t just keep repeating and defending that false claim with even more falsehoods!
I picked "post processing" because that's a very well known term for image editing, and as Wikipedia indicates, is an appropriate term for video and audio editing software.
But it’s not “
a very well known term” or even an appropriate term for audio editing and Wikipedia just states that it “may refer” to audio editing, not that it is actually used that way. The workflow for music creation is substantially different from image editing and therefore the term is not appropriate.
Then it's minutia since there can be sessions that just have mp3 sources, now we have to assume all editing for music is with mp3s.
Case in point: Of course YOU (not “we”) can continue to be rude by making false assumptions AND false assertions but then of course you’re encouraging a “fight” instead of a discussion!
He claims I'm incapable of understanding audio production, even though the software is "non-linear" just like my fields …
1. Where did I state you’re incapable of understanding audio production? Just another falsehood to encourage a “fight”.
2. Sure the software is “
non-linear just like your fields”, it also has a GUI, input and output devices and a number of other similarities but that does NOT mean the workflow, how it’s used in practice or what’s happening under the hood is the same. That’s just your false assumption, AGAIN!
the audio community says common audio files are 24bit 48k/96k (IE, like "higher quality" formats that image/video editors use).
But you’ve admitted you’re not part of the professional “audio community” and worse still, you’re arguing with someone who is and has been for about 30 years. Unless you know where, when and why 24/48 or 24/96 are common audio formats/files (which clearly you don’t) then it’s a straw man argument, again!
gregorio's last post is trying to have a false argument that all audio productions are now using mp3 because of transmission speeds.
That too is yet another lie! You think that lying is not rude and that it encourages discussion rather than “fights” do you?
Clearly your answer to my last post is “no” you’re not embarrassed, at least not embarrassed enough to actually stop lying and making false and hypocritical assertions!
G