Live data from Hacker News

24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

xiph.org

71–80 of 445 posts

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#71
post #7
post #3

While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors

> Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space. The article is highly technical. Does anyone have a way to describe this phenomenon intuitively?

[deleted]

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#72
post #18

I've said it before, this video demo is one of the very best I've ever seen. https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml So well prepared, so well presented, so little that could be removed without ruining it. I aspire to do such good demos but always fall so short.

Thank you, this really is a great watch. Particularly the zero point stuff re: stairstepping - I had no idea this was merely a function of display.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

24/192 can capture audio well beyond what we can hear. These sounds can, though, lead to distortion that is within our hearing range, depending on the equipment used. Therefore, rather than just being useless extra data, it can be actively harmful to the listening experience.

It's not that much different to think of than 480p vs 4K/2160p -- dramatically higher resolution, increasing the width and length of the 'grid' that sound is recorded into -- except that in the case of audio fidelity, quality after a certain point causes problems with playback systems, resulting in audible artifacts and distortion.

Increasing the bits doesn't increase the accuracy of the audio in terms of frequencies. It's 100% accurate regardless of bits. That's why trying to compare it to video resolution doesn't work. Bit depth is more akin to the screen brightness. If you turn down the brightness to 1 step from black, it's impossible to distinguish features in the image.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#74
Off topic, but I've noticed in the gym, sometimes the music playing from the instructor's iPhone through one of those cheap Ion Block Rocker bluetooth speakers (big boxy one, looks like a guitar amp) has very very noticeable pitch sag in various parts of various songs.

It's via bluetooth, and the source is Pandora. I even googled Pandora and pitch change, and found some forums with folks discussing bluetooth causing this to happen, which has never been my experience.

It occurred to me that slowing the playback (eg, causing the pitch to sag) could be a fantastic way of dealing with a connection that's too slow. It would be far better than stuttering, even though many of us would find the pitch change really annoying. The instructor and my wife simply can't hear it, or say "I thought that was just part of the song".

Anyway, has anyone ever heard of this happening? Do certain products do it? Were the Pandora forums wrong and this is actually a Pandora problem? Of all of the bluetooth problems I've had in my life, I've never experienced this before, so I tend to lean towards it being a data rate issue on the cell connection and Pandora slowing the music down.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#75

My go to comparison track for sound quality for a new device, headphones, DAC, amp, codec etc, is "Speak To Me" from Dark Side Of The Moon. I don't hear a difference between various rips that are 16/128 or 24/192, but I have noticed a difference listening to the Blu-ray version of it (which is many-many gigabytes in size). It is a definitely interesting experience, but the way I can describe it is as an absolute abse…

You should try downsampling the Blu-ray version yourself and comparing then.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#76
post #3

While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors

Well, yeah. For properly mixed audio, you don't need anything beyond 44-khz/16-bit. If you need to do extensive processing, or you're working with raw audio and want the extra margin to be able to recover a sound when it may be too quiet (or too loud) or otherwise compromised then more samples and greater bit-depth can be highly useful.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#77
post #30

Perhaps this is a silly question but the explanations mostly make perfect sense to me but in the case of sample rate, what happens when two waves with very different frequencies overlap? Say I've got an 18kHz wave and a 9kHz wave and the 9kHz wave is ever so slightly out of phase. Then imagine there are 10 different waves under 20kHz all interfering with each other in different wages. Is it still possible to reproduc…

With regards to the first part of your question - as long as the signal is bandlimited the Nyquist-Shannon theorem applies. If all of the waves are under 20kHz, regardless of how they're interfering with each other, the signal can be reconstructed perfectly with a 40kHz sample rate.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#78
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space. The article is highly technical. Does anyone have a way to describe this phenomenon intuitively?

24/192 can capture audio well beyond what we can hear. These sounds can, though, lead to distortion that is within our hearing range, depending on the equipment used. Therefore, rather than just being useless extra data, it can be actively harmful to the listening experience.

But weren't those "outside our hearing range sounds that can distort our hearing range" present in real life when the recording was made? So I would have heard the distortions had I been there in real life?

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#79
post #30

Perhaps this is a silly question but the explanations mostly make perfect sense to me but in the case of sample rate, what happens when two waves with very different frequencies overlap? Say I've got an 18kHz wave and a 9kHz wave and the 9kHz wave is ever so slightly out of phase. Then imagine there are 10 different waves under 20kHz all interfering with each other in different wages. Is it still possible to reproduc…

I believe that recorded music is a ton of waves of different frequencies going at the same time. You still just need to sample at twice the highest frequency. Overlapping frequencies may have some audible effects that may be undesirable (like beating [0]), but those would be audible in the real (analog) signal as well as the sampled signal.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012)

#80
post #18

I've said it before, this video demo is one of the very best I've ever seen. https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml So well prepared, so well presented, so little that could be removed without ruining it. I aspire to do such good demos but always fall so short.

09:30 to 10:30 explains the effects of quantisation extremely well! Overall, that is one of the clearest, no frills, to the point videos I've ever seen.
Post reply on HN