Live data from Hacker News

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

xiph.org

211–220 of 445 posts

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

#211
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> better yet, use floating-point Both your inputs (ADC) and outputs (DAC) are fixed-point. Why would you want to use a floating point in between? Technically, 64-bit floating point format would be enough for precision. But that would inflate both bandwidth and CPU requirements for no value. 32-bit floating point ain’t enough. Many people in the industry already use 32-bit integers for these samples. > Not 192 kHz; no…

I habitually edit audio using 32-bit float, not 16-bit integer. > Why would you want to use a floating point in between? Because 32-bit float has enough mantissa bits to represent all 24-bit integer fixed-point values exactly, so it is at least as good. Because 32-bit float is friendly to vectorization/SIMD, whereas 24-bit integer is not. Because with 32-bit integers, you still have to worry about overflow if you sta…

Yeah I edit at 32 bit float myself, then I export down to 16 bit 44100 flac for distribution.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe it. 24 bits is definitely needed for processing (better yet, use floating-point). Not 192 kHz; no friggin' way. Repeated processing through multiple blocks at a given sample rate does not produce cumulative discretization problems in the time domain; it's just not how the math works.

> better yet, use floating-point Both your inputs (ADC) and outputs (DAC) are fixed-point. Why would you want to use a floating point in between? Technically, 64-bit floating point format would be enough for precision. But that would inflate both bandwidth and CPU requirements for no value. 32-bit floating point ain’t enough. Many people in the industry already use 32-bit integers for these samples. > Not 192 kHz; no…

> Both your inputs (ADC) and outputs (DAC) are fixed-point. Why would you want to use a floating point in between?

Fixed point arithmetic is non-trivial and not well supported by CPU instruction sets. (Hint: you can't just use integer add/multiply.)

> I think you’re underestimating the complexity of modern musician-targeted VST effects. I’ve never programmed that kind of software. But I’m positive such effects are overwhelmingly more complex than just multiply+add these sample values. Therefore, extra temporal resolution helps.

Indeed, many audio effects require upsampling to work well with common inputs, e.g highly non-linear effects like distortion/saturation or analog filter models. However usually they perform upsampling and downsampling internally (commonly between 2x-4x-8x). While upsampling/downsampling is expensive (especially if you are using multiple of these types of plugins) its not clear if running at a higher sample rate across the board is worth it just to save those steps.

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

#214
post #140

There's a very straightforward practical reason why you might want to keep downloading 24/192. The people who put those together are on average "audiophile" snobs so the rips tend to be perfect, often from high quality sources like SACDs, hdtracks, etc. The source of the recording is usually the best master known for that record (special remastered editions, etc.). If you download mp3/spotify chances are the copy you…

> "If you download mp3/spotify" You are misconstruing Monty's argument here. He is very much against mp3...in fact he says he could tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and 16 bit 44k wav. The real point of the video is that 16 bit 44k wav is beyond sufficient...don't need to go beyond that to 24-bit 192kHz.

As far as I know, people consistently fail to tell the difference in blind A/B tests in listening between (any decent) FLAC and a well ripped mp3 from the same source. I know I can't. I can't link to proper double blind studies but that's the general consensus in the non-BS-audiophile community as far as I know.

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

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe it. 24 bits is definitely needed for processing (better yet, use floating-point). Not 192 kHz; no friggin' way. Repeated processing through multiple blocks at a given sample rate does not produce cumulative discretization problems in the time domain; it's just not how the math works.

> better yet, use floating-point Both your inputs (ADC) and outputs (DAC) are fixed-point. Why would you want to use a floating point in between? Technically, 64-bit floating point format would be enough for precision. But that would inflate both bandwidth and CPU requirements for no value. 32-bit floating point ain’t enough. Many people in the industry already use 32-bit integers for these samples. > Not 192 kHz; no…

> Why would you want to use a floating point in between?

Because if you don't you accumulate small errors at each processing step due to rounding. Remember that it is very common for an input to pass through multiple digital filters, EQs, some compressors, a few plugins, then to be grouped and have more plugins applied to the group. You can end up running the sample through hundreds of equations before final output. Small errors at the beginning can be magnified.

Pretty much all pro-level mix engines use 32-bit floating point for all samples internally. This gives you enough precision that there isn't a useful limit to the number of processing steps before accumulated error becomes a problem. By all samples I mean the input comes from a 24-bit ADC and gets converted to 32-bit FP. From that point on all plugins and processes use 32-bit FP. The final output busses convert back to 24-bit and dither to feed the DAC (for higher-end gear the DAC may handle this in hardware).

As for 192 kHz I've never seen or heard a difference. Even 96 kHz seems like overkill. A lot of albums have been recorded at 48 kHz without any problems. As the video explains there is no "missed" audible information if you're sampling at 48 kHz. I know that seems counter-intuitive but the math (and experiments) bear this out.

An inaccurate but intuitive way to think about it is your ear can't register a sound at a given frequency unless it gets enough of the wave which has a certain length in the time domain (by definition). If an impulse is shorter than that then it has a different frequency, again by definition. 1/16th of a 1 kHz wave doesn't actually happen. Even if it did a speaker is a physical moving object and can't respond fast enough to make that happen (speakers can't reproduce square waves either for the same reasons - they'll end up smoothing it out somewhat). Even if it could the air can't transmit 1/16th of a wave - the effect will be a lower-amplutide wave of a different frequency. And again your ear drum can't transmit such an impulse (nor can it transmit a true square wave).

I've done a lot of live audio mixing and a little bit of studio work, including helping a band cut a vinyl album. Fun fact: almost all vinyl is made from CD masters and has been for years. The vinyl acetate (and master) are cut by squashing the crap out of the CD master and applying a lot of EQ to shape the signal (both to prevent the needle from cutting the groove walls too thin), then having the physical medium itself roll off the highs.

The only case where getting a 24-bit/192kHz recording might be worthwhile is if it is pre-mastering. Then it won't be over-compressed and over-EQ'd, but that applies just as well to any master. (For the vinyl we cut I compressed the MP3 version myself from the 24-bit 48 kHz masters so they had the best dynamic range of anything: better than the CD and far better than the Vinyl).

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

#216
post #201

and yet, we are nowhere near being able to electronically reproduce a live acoustic music performance. have you ever walked by a bunch of musical sound coming out of a room and thought to yourself, "wow, those live musicians sound great" only to discover it was just a stereo playing? nope. as engineers we will never solve this problem as long as the "44.1kHz is good enough" dogma is perpetuated. here's a question. wh…

> have you ever walked by a bunch of musical sound coming out of a room and thought to yourself, "wow, those live musicians sound great" only to discover it was just a stereo playing? Yes, I have. With the right combination of speaker setups and hi fi recordings, it is possible to fool yourself into believing there are musicians there.

Note that sitting in front of a speaker setup playing a carefully selected recording is not the same as the scenario above. We do not yet have the technology to fool someone walking by a room, especially for orchestral works or even an acoustic drum kit.

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

#217
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Therefore, extra temporal resolution helps. But it's not resolution, right? It's extra frequencies outside the audible range. Is there any natural process that would make those affect the audible components, if I were listening to the music live instead of a recording?

Yes, you can get a beat effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics) ) as the ultrasonic frequencies interfere with the audible ones. It's generally not considered desirable.

Only if the two are mixed in a nonlinear way (e.g. "heterodyned").

If a sonic and ultrasonic frequency are combined together, but a low pass filter doesn't pass the ultrasonic one, the ultrasonic one doesn't exist on the other end.

Hence, there can be no beat.

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

#218
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have you ever walked by a bunch of musical sound coming out of a room and thought to yourself, "wow, those live musicians sound great" only to discover it was just a stereo playing? Yes, I have. With the right combination of speaker setups and hi fi recordings, it is possible to fool yourself into believing there are musicians there.

Note that sitting in front of a speaker setup playing a carefully selected recording is not the same as the scenario above. We do not yet have the technology to fool someone walking by a room, especially for orchestral works or even an acoustic drum kit.

But I have experienced exactly this. Not an orchestra, but a recording of a band. I guess you can split hairs about the definition of "fool", but I have been fooled as you describe.

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

#219
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not at all, bitrate differences are audible. Even with the same bitrate, you’ll need 4K video to get quality comparable to uncompressed 1080p. For example, mp4 defines that the brightness channel Y should be stored with full resolution, and the color channels Pb Pr should be stored at half resolution. So in a 4K mp4 video at lossless bitrate, the actual colors will only be stored at 1080p. This functionality is cal…

It doesn't matter what resolution the color is stored at, as long as the high frequencies are the same as the Y channel. You won't have lost anything. Of course, cross-channel intra prediction would work better[1] but 4:2:0 is pretty good quality considering you can throw out 3/4 the pixels. [1] https://people.xiph.org/~unlord/spie_cfl.pdf

That’s again the same issue. Nice theory, and theoretically is true, but all real algorithms also subsample high frequencies, and scale them back up with nearest-neighbor.

The same issue happens with audio. Nice theory, completely broken realistic implementations.

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

#220
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason the DAC or ADC can't internally do the resampling itself. You are describing alternative (b) i mentioned above: digital filtering plus oversampling. This also isn't without side effects. Oversampling a 44KHz signal is not the same as having a 192Khz material to start with. Very different.

Yes, and the only difference is the lack of unwanted ultrasonic signals.

No, it is not, please do take a deep look at oversampling in D/A conversion and the artifacts of digital filtering, articles are out there.
Post reply on HN