|
Bit Rate - And why it doesn't apply to you (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
Always sad when someone has nothing left in their little bag of tricks that they have to start calling people on their spelling. PS, prose is more a grammatical syntax thing but i'm sure a literature scholar like you knos that.
My lack of detail to spelling is probably due to my frustration having to explain such simple concepts to people like you that clearly don't understand the core concepts to make sense of why i said what i said but keep demanding to understand when they aren't willing to understand the terms involved.
Proof ?
You are asking me to prove why 10 - 5 is 5. I actually would but until more people start asking why , i think i will wait. The reason being that if you don't get it thus far, it will take a really long discourse on the principles of digital audio and i just don't have the time to spoon fed you. |
Touched a nerve, did I? Just remember, you threw the first punch, in that regard.
I'm asking for proof of your thesis. You either have it, or you don't. Right now, all you're making is conjecture and that's a poor substitute for an actual argument.
Now, prove that high-resolution recording does not make a difference next to lower resolution recordings, for music which is commonly played on a large sound-system that magnify sound or don't.
I'm not taking your word for it. You don't have substantial credibility, any more. Post a link to an authoritative website that backs up your argument.
Otherwise, I'm content to let the matter drop. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
What a strange thread, with a lot of double backing. It deosn't matter, the it does matter, then it only doesn't matter for EDM.
Rendering a .wav made in a seqeuncer with mixed sources (VST and samples) sounds better at higher bitrates. I've tested it before. It works. Now go try it yourself, then post back here. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
What a strange thread, with a lot of double backing. It deosn't matter, the it does matter, then it only doesn't matter for EDM.
Rendering a .wav made in a seqeuncer with mixed sources (VST and samples) sounds better at higher bitrates. I've tested it before. It works. Now go try it yourself, then post back here. |
caer to be a little more specific ?
what was the dbfs of the mix. What bit rate , what sample rate, and what where you comparing it to ? |
|
|
| Raphie |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
it will make a difference. Just not for dance. |
what a bunch of cr#p: bitdepth has no musical style preference...
it will always matter....... |
|
|
| flutlicht junky |
Man there's been a proper influx of toothless facebookers recently. Has everyone lost the ability to use their brain?
I dont claim to know anything about bitrate / depth but reading between the lines (i.e. using my cognitive ability) I can work out that what the OP is saying is if bit rate gives a larger dynamic range it's going to mean when all your going to do is smash all remaining dynamic range using the latest compressor / hard limiter chain.
Besides everyone knows just turn it up to 11 and hard clip the master, its a cleaner louder then (I'm only half joking). |
|
|
| Raphie |
| if this was supposed to be a rant topic (i.e. trance is e without dynamics anyway)then i would undestandyour view. however this is not how i understood it. |
|
|
| flutlicht junky |
btw I was only being facetious as I've a crappy cold.
OP can you shed some light on what you mean, as I'm thinking you mean about the dynamic range in EDM being smaller than other styles so the debate on bitrate is largely irrelevant. |
|
|
| Subtle |
What are you guys rambling about ? :D
The end product is going to be 16 bit anyways, and even worse, a 320 kbps mp3 file at best. |
|
|
| Raphie |
| imagine being a photographer and being tied to 16bit colout for capturing and editing photo's..... |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
imagine being a photographer and being tied to 16bit colout for capturing and editing photo's..... |
Well, yeah.. you could of course render a 192 khz 32bit wave file and keep it on your PC for your own listening pleasure, but the fact remains.. everyone has to follow the 16 bit standard if they are going to have any second part listeners at all.
That is just how it is.
You could argue that the summing would result in a better file, but the marginal difference is so small you are better off thinking about what music to make instead. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Well, yeah.. you could of course render a 192 khz 32bit wave file and keep it on your PC for your own listening pleasure, but the fact remains.. everyone has to follow the 16 bit standard if they are going to have any second part listeners at all.
That is just how it is.
You could argue that the summing would result in a better file, but the marginal difference is so small you are better off thinking about what music to make instead. |
Even when reducing to a lower resolution, it's still better to have a high resolution master. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Even when reducing to a lower resolution, it's still better to have a high resolution master. |
Yeah, but how much effect does it really have to export a master that is 24/32 bit ?
I remember exporting a 192khz, 32 bit floating file for a master engineer once and we both thought it sounded maybe just slightly better, without being able to point finger as to what it was.
But once rendered down to 16 bit, would it have sounded worse if the initial file was 16 bit instead of 32 ?
I would say, definitely not.
I`d say the difference is totally inaudible once it is rendered back to 16 bit, but sure thing, it probably wont hurt to do it of course.
But by all means, please tell me that exporting at 24 bit actually makes a difference, so i can start doing that with the feeling that im making an actually difference.
Edit: and especially since the track is most likely gonna be played only as mp3. |
|
|
|
|
