John T

BenMMusTech
As for my claim to HD audio...i will maintain that my last master and a couple before that are HD without one bit of HD recording equipment or playback...you don't attack my mixes and masters, because you can't! You attack my claim of HD audio because it probably suits you because audio is still probably your bread and butter.

It is indeed true that one of us makes his living in audio production and the other doesn't.

I was going to let this go John...but it sticks in my craw, and I always stand my ground when someone thinks they can push me around. First, I've actually recorded a wind orchestra for money :), second you can take and have all the audio work in the world...there is nothing more boring or frustrating that watching children banging pots and calling it 'muzak'. I can hit all of Freddie Mercury's note (I've got a Bohemian Rhapsody on the way, piano part is done, and it will be set in the Roman Colosseum, and I'm a top-notch guitarist. I can also read and write music at the highest level - so sonata form and imitation counterpoint. So, again you can record all the pub rockers, and button pushers you like. It just doesn't bother me. Now let's be clear, the above paragraph isn't an ego statement as some like yourself might think. According to Gardener's (pre-eminent psychologist) theory on intelligence there are 7 or 8 types of intelligence, and one happens to be intrapersonal intelligence. Intrapersonal intelligence is the understanding of self. This is also means, and I hate the communist notions, but no one is more important than another. It doesn't matter how great I am, the bootlicker down the street can also come up with something just as brilliant.  Now because of modern schooling, and the terribleness that it entails, means by the time you leave school that belief in one's self or intrapersonal intelligence is knocked out of you. To quote John Lennon 'when they've scared you for 20 odd years, then they expect you to pick a career, when you can't really function you're so full of fear'. 
 
I've worked out what I was trying to say in regards to the importance of 64bit audio. Firstly, what we're talking about here is a container file - like digital film or an Mp4 file. Then you have a codec to decode that file. So you're right when you say there isn't an audio format of 64bitfp...but when you wrap that file in a 64bit container file like Sonar's 64bit container file, then there is. And I've already mentioned the benefits of 64bitfp audio files, and indeed where 24bit would be better. But here goes, first 64bitfp audio files are imperative when using the analog emulation aesthetic, for a number of reasons but probably the most important is dynamic range...I don't have to worry about clipping once I am inside the box. Now an old school engineer who has become entrenched with the old ideas on digital audio would say this is a big no, but so long as you're not going back out the box...it is fine and indeed necessary, because in the analogue days most of the equipment added a gentle layer of compression or harmonic distortion and to achieve that with digital emulations you need to mix as the engineers of the rock-avant-garde did. Another reason why 64bit container files are important is because of freezing. Even with a gaming laptop, with an SSD drive for work and programs, a quad core intel processor and 32 gig of ram...I still freeze. By using 64bit, and indeed a 64bit fp mix engineer - to keep the audio pristine it should be obvious as to the benefits of using a 64bit Fp audio file container format. Then there are the obvious benefits of using the same file format throughout a recording or mix. It's not always possible...but again the benefits should be obvious. 
 
Now I note, again you didn't attack my work...just my ideas and you used your employment as a guarantee you knew better. So unfortunately, I can only do the same and let the readers decide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcQVCAJakM&t=124s This is my Nights in White Satin cover...with newly minted AV work, that I created with various programs...so not just audio. Now it's important to know that I used a 64bit master file when creating the final render. Again, think about the last analogy I used about what would be a better digital medium distribution platform...would a crappy 16bit be the best distribution medium - the standard since the 70s, which has been bitcrushed and probably dithered, which is where you lose definition. So like 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion and indeed important time based effects, and not too mention virtual binaural spatial plugs. Or would my HD 64bit container master file be the better option? I will let the readers decide. I apologize to the readers, for posting my link. And I apologize for going off-topic. My mind wanders like a hermit in the night, but it always bumps into land.
 
Peace and Love     

BenMMusTech
 
I've worked out what I was trying to say in regards to the importance of 64bit audio. Firstly, what we're talking about here is a container file - like digital film or an Mp4 file. Then you have a codec to decode that file. So you're right when you say there isn't an audio format of 64bitfp...but when you wrap that file in a 64bit container file like Sonar's 64bit container file, then there is.

 
Wrong. Particularly in the case of WAV, which doesn't really follow a container / data paradigm in that way. But in any case, it's the data that has a bit depth, not the container, as is obvious if you can stop typing and think for a few seconds.
 

 
Now I note, again you didn't attack my work...just my ideas and you used your employment as a guarantee you knew better.

No, that's absolutely not what I'm doing.
 
I'm not attacking your work, because your work is not what's in question.
 
You may well have hit on a way of working that in aggregate delivers the kind of mixes you want to deliver. If so, great!
 
However, you are making technical, factual claims throughout this thread, which are simply wrong. Whether or not your mixes are good is an entirely separate question. You quite simply don't know what you're talking about on a good number of your technical claims.
 
As to why this bothers me, well, here it is. I absolutely don't care if you as an individual want to believe whatever you believe (though I doubt you really do). However, I think that this forum, the odd bit of drama aside, has a notably good spirit of people sharing information and helping one another.
 
The end result of that is that there's an atmosphere of trust here, and someone coming in saying "hey, look, I've proven all this stuff", and banging on about stuff that they themselves know they don't really understand, is wasting other people's time in the most egregious manner. You haven't proven anything, and you don't understand bit-depth in audio.

It's funny that you'd get so wound up about my dig up there. Because that's the thing, really. All of this nonsense is an exercise in ego validation. You want to be taken for an expert. Well, OK, go and acquire some expertise then.
Stop typing, and do some more reading, and do both the forum, and yourself a favour.

BenMMusTech
 
 First, I've actually recorded a wind orchestra for money :), second you can take and have all the audio work in the world...there is nothing more boring or frustrating that watching children banging pots and calling it 'muzak'. I can hit all of Freddie Mercury's note (I've got a Bohemian Rhapsody on the way, piano part is done, and it will be set in the Roman Colosseum, and I'm a top-notch guitarist. I can also read and write music at the highest level - so sonata form and imitation counterpoint.

There is a certain pattern that emerges from a lot of your posts, a recurring theme if you will, and to that end I think it's time . . . yep . . . it's time, . . . time to bring Mac Davis into this conversation, this time with a little help from Kenny Rogers.
 
This ones's for you Neb, sing along . . .
 

John T
I'm not attacking your work, because your work is not what's in question.
 
You may well have hit on a way of working that in aggregate delivers the kind of mixes you want to deliver. If so, great!
 
However, you are making technical, factual claims throughout this thread, which are simply wrong. Whether or not your mixes are good is an entirely separate question. You quite simply don't know what you're talking about on a good number of your technical claims.

+
 
@BenMMusTech: if you mention that to judge musical results some musical background is required, probably you can understand that special experience is required for judging technical staff. Nanosecond circuits, microsecond precise calculations, fixed precision of algorithms for particular purpose, etc. are not going to give any advantage in creating/playing music. But playing guitar or writing sonatas are of no help in understanding how DAC works
 
For the topic. I think that was not mentioned explicitly yet. 16/24bit files is the only way to be sure that someone else will hear the sound as close to the original as possible since 32/64 formats will have to be converted in the software or hardware before feeding the converter. It is not about "better or worse", other DAW/interface can do this analytically better than particular system and mentioned LG/HiEnd/HiFi/etc. can make it sound "better". The point is: it can sound different. And that is what people (if I understand music production ideology correctly...) try to avoid till the very end.
In practice, the difference is so small that 24/32/64 and even proper converted 16bits sound indistinguishable the same. 32/64 will sound the same independent from the (digital) amplification while fixed point formats, including 24bit, in not maxed regions can always be amplified up to the level of audible quantization distortion/noise. That property of fixed point format is what makes a bad idea to record in 16bit, intermediate render into 24bit. The same property is also responsible for the claims "your DAW has a bug in 24bit rounding" (famous story with Similitude).
 

azslow3
@BenMMusTech: if you mention that to judge musical results some musical background is required, probably you can understand that special experience is required for judging technical staff. Nanosecond circuits, microsecond precise calculations, fixed precision of algorithms for particular purpose, etc. are not going to give any advantage in creating/playing music. But playing guitar or writing sonatas are of no help in understanding how DAC works

This is exactly it. I never weigh in on conversations here about composing for strings, or playing the drums, or any number of things I know nothing about. Nobody's an expert at everything, and there's nothing wrong with that.

John T
[...] However, I think that this forum, the odd bit of drama aside, has a notably good spirit of people sharing information and helping one another.
 
The end result of that is that there's an atmosphere of trust here [and the risk of betraying that ...]
 

Very nicely stated. There is a fine line at times between "healthy" discussions where everyone can walk away having learned something versus the "holier than thou" posts which end up getting a good discussion thread locked out.
 
In my experience, technical touting is often thrown out to proclaim "better" when, in fact, digital recording already exceeded the capability of human hearing years ago (the ultimate "test"); let alone all of the other pieces parts getting sound from the DAW (or whatever is streaming audio) to a person's ears.
 
FWIW (something from earlier in this thread), I also own the V30, and the onboard speaker blows chunks making its touted DAC totally worthless for associated "real life" mobile situations (my Droid Maxx had a far superior speaker on it). For ad hoc capture, it is excellent; for playback, it is actually (quite a bit) less than its competition. What good is such a great DAC when the speaker is incredibly sub-standard? Same argument applies to other items brought up in this thread - "one component does not a system make."
 
Apologies to the OP for assisting in the derailment here. But to reiterate - only dither once as the final step to end media target
 

mettelus
 
 
In my experience, technical touting is often thrown out to proclaim "better" when, in fact, digital recording already exceeded the capability of human hearing years ago (the ultimate "test"); let alone all of the other pieces parts getting sound from the DAW (or whatever is streaming audio) to a person's ears.
 

Very true.
 
I also always groan a bit when I see people disappearing down a rabbit hole of magic recipes like some of what's been talked about here. When you listen to a flawed mix someone posts, the problem is pretty much never anything to do with bit depth settings or anything of that nature. Spending less time worrying about that stuff, and just getting better at mixing will deliver far greater results far sooner than any of this stuff ever will.

Hmmm, I've seen in this conversation for decades now, I have suffered through several double blind tests at several top notch state of the professional studios and any never seen or even heard of any human being that could effectively tell the difference between 24/32/64 or even 192 bit recordings and "guess" correctly every time during the double blind tests.
Guess is the operative word here. As the prankster I tend to be during a double blind test between trying to distinguish between trying to tell the difference 16/24/32 bit tests, most discernable listeners could always tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, but not every single time. However my prankster trick was introducing a solo acoustic version I recorded of Frank Zappa's "Why Does It Hurt When I Pee?" into the mix, and 2 out of 4 picked it at being 24 bit.
 I had to just smile a wicked smile and say, "Well it was in fact recorded at 24/48 in SONAR X3 Producer with a 64 bit double precision sound engine, exported to native stereo broadcast .wav 24/48, than mastered in Sound Forge Pro 11, but what you just heard was a 16 bit 320 k/Bs .mp3." 
Their ears just fooled them, because it was unexpected, they picked and chose it because funny and an enjoyable blindside to their egos.
 
 I also have been recording at the industry standard 24 bit/48k/hz for decades now and have enjoyed the benefits of both 32 bit floating point and 64 bit floating point "processing" while recording all projects at 24/48 unless otherwise specified to 24/16.44 or 24/96.
 I've also found to be true, the all audio has the same sound quality at 24 bit depth, the frequency only effects latency. The faster the frequency, the lower the latency during recording..
 
But my question is, when you upload a 32 bit "depth" .wav file to Sound Cloud, do they leave it that way, or does it get processed (dithered) down to a much more "STREAMING" server storage friendly industry standard  16/44.1?? Or maybe even a much more server storage and "streaming" friendly 16 bit 320k/bs.MP3??
 I don't know, call me a skeptic, but I don't think a 32 bit depth.wav file wouldn't stream very well over the internet, if it streamed at all..
 I would safely assume 99.9% of all consumer computers won't even recognize any bit depth over 48, modern day music lovers typically loath music with ultra wide dynamic ranges, what doesn't knock them out of their seats or scares them, generally gets lost under the everyday noise floor ever present in normal listening environments
most listener's couldn't care less about listening to humanly impossible frequencies they can't hear and don't listen to Sound Cloud with audiophile and or professional grade studio equipment that would give them a chance to tell the difference if they could? I know I typically don't bother, nor do I whip any metering or spectrum analyzers on stuff I stream from the internet.. 

Steev
 
But my question is, when you upload a 32 bit "depth" .wav file to Sound Cloud, do they leave it that way, or does it get processed (dithered) down to a much more "STREAMING" server storage friendly industry standard  16/44.1?? Or maybe even a much more server storage and "streaming" friendly 16 bit 320k/bs.MP3??

Ho ho, 320. Good heavens no.

Used to be an awful 128, then they changed it to make it worse.

https://www.magneticmag.com/2018/01/soundcloud-lowers-sound-quality-uploads-half/


Now, of course, better input means better output with any lossy data compression scheme, but soundcloud does such extreme violence to what you upload to it, it hardly matters.
 

Hmm if none of you can hear the difference then that should tell everyone not to trust your advice for one.

I've already stated the obvious reasons for 64bit fp audio giles...and John you're fundamentally wrong about container files...where did you get your information from? Forums did you say...as an academic or of the academic class...if I handed my thesis up and all I had as references were a bunch of faceless talking heads...i would have failed! Which I didn't...again, you may like to think your a bully...you and your Matron character...but again you missed the point of what I said and you don't have an argument against the key reasons for 64bitfp audio and instead you retread old rumours about the digital medium. Now let's get this straight...what you're misunderstanding as most do is the digitized medium which needs to be looked at from a scientific, artistic and historic perspective. You are not. You're repeating, so it would seem, and quoting from reading forums over the last 20 years. I did the research on the digital medium...hmm Negroponte, Manovich etc the foremost thinkers on the digitized medium since it's inception. I read countless whitepapers and the like on container files too. I am the expert...an M.Phil denotes that expertise...i will have a Dr. In front of my name too at some point in the future. Expert. I will restate, that mixes and in particular mixes that use analouge emulation, time based and spatial effects benefit from a 64bit fp work flow through to the master. And if you can't tell the difference between a work that has been mixed at a 16bit, 24, 32, and 64 bit audio paradigm...you shouldn't be in the biz. Again...read what I said properly...you're all going off on the wrong tangent and stressing over the output stage not the mix stage. It's the mix stage that is important. Sure you play a mix and it's the crappy converters or soundcloud converts BLA. The beauty of 64bit fp audio though is you get a wide fat mix in the 1st place, and then it doesn't matter about the delivery stage. You see if you had a point and had decent arguing skills you would have an argument against the key points and the benefits of 64bit fp audio but instead you focus on the output stage. Finally, if you can't hear the widening of sonic pallet when using 64bitfp it's probably because you don't use an intensive effects regime like me. And again here is where the benefits of 64bit over the rest shine. If you just record button pushers, and troubadours which require no real mixing work...then as I've said all along 24bit would be fine.

And as for the person saying his LG has **** speakers...all handheld computers have pretty crap speakers...they're the size of a very small coin. It's when you connect the handheld computer to decent speakers...like Harmon Kardon for instance you get the benefits.

You want to debate with me...go for it, but I've written 20000 word papers and argued my point and was awarded an M.Phil...meaning I could out argue you all. Now go back and find a way to argue against my key points as to the benefits of 64bitfp audio instead of your slight of hand arguments that have no merit.

Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence 🤑

As for the person complaun