Hmm. The forum keeps eating my reply.

Let's try again:
 

BenMMusTech
Since this topic hasn't 'died

It totally had. Apart from that deleted post there, nobody had posted in it for a week
 

BenMMusTech
Whilst these aren't science or digital audio theory papers, the writer seems to be echoing everything I've stated.

You said it man. Person on internet with no evidence agrees with other person on the internet with no evidence.

This is a long way to climb down from "I am an expert" and "I can prove this", isn't it?

But in any case, he isn't echoing what you've said.

 

BenMMusTech
The first article, https://theproaudiofiles....tering-myth-explained/ the writer suggests that there are benefits to exporting to a 64bitfp pre-master even if that pre-master is going to a 'pro' mastering house and will be eventually truncated ;) (

Except he doesn't suggest that at all. Seriously, everyone go and have a look. It suggests exporting a pre-master at 32 bit in the specific case that you've mixed incompetently and have master bus clipping.

 

BenMMusTech
This article, www.justmastering.com/article-mixingformp3.php suggests that you should use a lossy format to upload to soundcloud. Whilst it doesn't suggest 64bitfp audio files

No, it doesn't, does it? Like the last link didn't either. Is this that famed academia-honed argumentative skill? Or is it a big ol bottle of weak sauce? Let's find out:
 

BenMMusTech
since 24bit or 16bit audio files are lossy files when converting from 64bitfp audio files

No. That's not what "lossy" means in this context. "Lossy" here refers to a data compression scheme where the results of uncompressing the data you've compressed are not reliably the same as the data that first went in (say, mp3) as opposed to a compression scheme where what you unpack later is the same as what you put in (eg: FLAC). You're confusing two different categories here.

 

BenMMusTech
This article is interesting www.justmastering.com/article-masteredforitunes.php because it says even if you hand in a 24bit audio file, during transcoding the file gets shunted back up to a 32bitfp audio file, so take from that what you want.

I think taking from things what you want is what's got you in this ill-informed position, so I'll decline that advice thanks. There's one thing you can't take from it, though, which is anything at all about 64 bit, which the article mentions solely with regard to internal processing.

So, hey, not just a super weak case you've made there, but you lying about what's in the links you've posted (or you don't understand what's in them).

For all the I'M AN ACADEMIC bluster, rarely have I encountered someone so aggressively opposed to learning anything or having their mind changed by the facts of a matter.

Look, I'll say it again. I absolutely don't care if you individually believe the things you say. But you shouldn't waste the time of forum members by pretending to be more informed than you are. This forum is a great resource for sharing knowledge. It is also, unfortunately, a viral vector for berks to spread ignorance.




 

BenMMusTech
 The writer of the article also backs up my belief that 64bit fp audio files are container files and even if you record at 16 or 24 bit, because once you apply processing, the file becomes a defacto 64bit fp audio file :). So if you don't want truncation to occur it's important to keep the bit depth of your audio files as high as possible for as long as possible.

You can get supported by many people... but you will not pass the first year of any serious technical education with such a belief
 

There is nothing wrong with using empirical evidence to develop a strategy besides I only listened on PC speakers but Ben's mixes sounded good.
 
 

We're not talking about his mixes though.

John T
We're not talking about his mixes though.

Actually we are, because I maintain that without my 64bitfp audio file theory...I could not have achieved those masters and mixes. And you should read those articles properly, because he says if you have the ability to export at higher bit depths, then you should export at the highest quality possible. It's in the mastering for ITunes article.

And 24bit is a lossless format if you're bit crushing from 64bit. If all processing is done at 64bit and stored In a 64bit fp file, but then bit crushed to a 24bit file - you lose resolution and dither is applied to make up for loss of definition in the very last few bits.

As for your accusation, that I'm not very open-minded to contrary opinions to my own, well I am - but I'm also prone to stand up and say this is what I believe and here is the evidence. I've produced mixes and masters that you can't pull apart and say...they're crap. And I maintain its because of 64bitfp audio and master files. I've produced a mastering engineer who uses the same theories and he's Itunes certified. I've also given useful links that helps clear up the confusion regarding 64bit fp audio and why you should use said audio format. Prey tell Little John, what have you contributed to this discussion, apart from negative invective and the lack of understanding in regards to modern digital audio theory?

I've got scientific papers which I'm going through as we speak...I've had enough of people like yourself John and this anti-intellgence stance. Sure I piss people off, because I'm happy within myself and express this... so by all means write nasty comments about my works on Youtube or here, it doesn't work, but enough. I will continue to work on my theory, and submit that theory for peer review using the AES journal:). In fact Little John - you've given me the impetus to do so :)

Ben

BenMMusTech
 you should read those articles properly

Well, I have to admire your sense of irony, if that's what it is.
 

BenMMusTech
 I've had enough of people like yourself John and this anti-intellgence stance.

It's not intelligence that I've been arguing a case against.


I dunno, I suppose I've been wasting my own time here. I shall stop doing that.

BenMMusTech
so by all means write nasty comments about my works on Youtube or here

One last thing. I can't let this stand. I have said nothing about your work at all, quite deliberately. Your work's not what's in question. Though you don't surprise me by this attempt at a smear, trying to paint me as someone who's just knocking your efforts. I haven't done that, and won't be doing that.

John T
 
I dunno, I suppose I've been wasting my own time here. I shall stop doing that.

That might be the best road to take, you are dealing with someone who is self appointed 'Top of Field' in many and any areas of music and music production, as you surely have already found out. Here is a couple of other snippets to help see what you are up against.
 

BenMMusTech

Jamesg1213
 
I think very many of them could, and can; Emerson, Wakeman, the Shulman brothers,  Howe, Banks, Hackett, Fripp to name but a few.
 Anyway, I listened to the piece Ben. Have no idea what to say about it really, but hey, I listened!

 
How about 'wow music and art dressed up as philosophy? - wow that's new' lol The piece is about trying to achieve higher levels of consciousness and looking beyond our limitations ;)

 Or the technical proficiency to create such a marvelous work is beyond my comprehension :).

 Or the sonic nuances of the sounds and the mix blew me away.

 Hows that James for a few suggestions? lol.

 Wakeman and Emerson probably knew how to read and write music...I'm not sure about Fripp - he did write Song of The Gulls off Islands...my point still stands, none would be able to sit down and write a classical sonata. And mock up every instrument - or almost every instrument in a virtual orchestral score editor and make things sound as real as I have got them IMO.
 
Ben

 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3719946
 
and
 

BenMMusTech
 
I am a whole band and a whole orchestra...after 32 years of being in music, I don't have many peers anymore, and most people would just get in my way

 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3755473

Heh.
 
Yes, circular reasoning abounds here. I know doing X makes a person awesome, because I'm awesome and I did X. Well, ok. If five star self-reviews are what someone's looking for, then they can always guarantee that. I suppose it provides satisfaction of a sort.

Myself, I'm far too handsome to carry on bothering with this.