Mixing and production are off topic, it is a craft that includes imagination.
People that do final mastering are of quite different opinion than you, I can assure you.
Shakespeare on one occasion used the phrase 'lend me your ears'.
One can lend somebody else's test or chart, but nobody's ears.

 

no way ... when the topic is flac files, there is always an mp3 fundamentalist who is ready to blow himself up shouting:
"ʇɔɐɟᴉʇɹɐ Ɛdɯ akbar!"
(trad: "mp3 artifact is great!")

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2020

Again, have you tried soulseek? Please do.

 

You can't tell the difference between 24bit and 16bit, sorry, that's equal to claiming that you can tell the distance between two stars you see in the sky; information you can google, but information you can't tell by yourself by eyeballing it ;)

Also, you can protect your ears all you want, but they'll never be protected from aging. Like you know, you can live a healthy life and you'll still eventually flatline like any other mortal being. You can live a healthy life and at the age of 60, you'll still never have the vigor you had when you were 20 (unless you were REALLY obese at the age of 20, of course). This is a matter of physiology - and I'd also be willing to wager that on the average, an industry professional actually is exposed to substantially more hearing stress than most of their peers. Typically you don't just suddenly damage your ears by being exposed to something really loud (that is however the way to damage them really quickly), even listening at low levels exposes some level of stress to the small hair-like receptors in your ears.

So do you have other false beliefs you're willing to depart with? I'd be happy to correct you and together we can make it educational for everyone <3

 

Not to mention 24-bit FLACs.

 

Oh, I'm sure they are. But they aren't going to beat science with their venerable opinions, I'm afraid. Their job is to believe that they are special and to do whatever they think they're special at, and I'm sure they're quite good at that. For reasons they might not be entirely aware of - just like runner is really good at running even though they might not have perfect understanding of the underlying physiology of running.

 

Now you're picking on old age? Why, when - according to your beliefs - nobody can hear no difference anyway?
Or just
Blinded by Science
Foreigner

 

The context was mixing engineers and golden ears, not codecs and your untrained ears not being to hear them.

If you claim that you have trained ears, then post proof by posting your credentials to participate in MUSHRA tests. Or devise another kind of proof where you can get statistically significant results when comparing 16 or 24 bit PCM formats vs. 192kbps in ABX tests. Should be a piece of cake for someone who claims to hear difference between 320kbps and 256kbps, so I'll expect the proof within 3 days. LAME or Fraunhofer, either one is fine - I can't hear jackshit between these two. If you do not have access to Fraunhofer, don't worry - I got Cubase 10.5 and I'll happily render your .wav's there, as that engine uses Fraunhofer.

 

Well, I,m not

 

Answer: The difference can be heard in the reverb tails.
On a clear day you can see for 3 miles or more. Add humidity you can see far but it is hazy.
Same for reverb and bit-depth. Lower the bit rate, the less clear the subtleties of the smaller details, like reverb trails.
In the 3D image relation, volume to depth, frequency to height, panning to left and right, and bit rate clarity of the depth.

 

A difference that you can't hear, my friend ;)

Claim otherwise? Go and follow the instructions on my post above. Add in some sweet proof of using that ugly, ugly, ugly thing called ABX test. Audiophiles really hate it!

And most importantly, of course, the source material has to be signal that is in no way digitally amplified after it is rendered.

 

I'll do you one better.
I dare any REAL professional in the recording industry to prove me wrong.

 

Crickets......

 

All of that, and more. You can hear a convincing difference in high end (more brightness and focus), tighter sound (with better defined transients), richer details. 16-bit sounds overall duller (or 'more empty').
The proof? I can hear it each and every time. For years. Age didn't change it a bit.

 

High end is what is lost with age for most. My father in law said his speakers from the 60's were the best. He turned them up and couldn't hear the tweeters were blown. He was 75 then.

Fourier you're being proven wrong. Where are testimonials to back up your claims?

 

Are you guys kidding me i always thought that 128kbps was the industry standard for codecs

 

Same here. And it's such a difference that we will still be aware of it even when we lose our top end as we get older, imo.
@Fourier One only has to be working in a 24Bit+ project everyday to know this.
Bounce it down to 16Bit.
Oh. What happened? Where did all my lovely details and reverb tails go?! And all the sparkle and depth?
Back to the project to remix! etc.

 

Well, hello Mr. 2002. Welcome to 2020.

 

Can you hear when there is a bad case of dithering?
I heard a couple song on a crappy radio in a loud environment that sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
I think it was the dithering after the compression and limiting of the radio station. The song's weren't that bad it was the overall sound that drove me crazy. the only thing I could think to do this was the dithering rearing it's ugly head. These were new singles and the older songs sounded OK.

 

Fourier, much to learn there is, young Padowon.


disclaimer: I have in no way any affiliation with the Jedi and do not represent their views or objectives on earth or anywhere else.