24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by golergka » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 7:44 AM UTC

Const-me wrote: post #180

mwcampbell wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To truly support downstream remixing, musicians would need to distribute the original, separate tracks. Occasionally an independent musician will do this, but it's not at all common AFAIK.

For software, you have a source code, you compile it with a standard-complying compiler, and you’ll more or less reproduce the result. Music is different. If you have the original multi-track composition, you can’t reproduce the result unless you also have the original DAW software (of the specific version), and all the original VST plugins (again, of the specific version each). All that software is non-free, and typ…

Traktor stems and remix decks though.

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

#262

Post by ptaipale » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 7:49 AM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #253

kierenj wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you check out the article? 16 bits can cover the range very well, more than you (or anyone) could ever distinguish

Sigh. Please see my other reply. It isn't a matter of bit rate (indeed, 16 bits could be more than enough). It is a matter of how engineers serve the targeted markets of each format.

Perfectly valid point. It's not a technical limitation that "normal" recordings are spoiled by compression, but it's a commercial limitation (or whatever you call it) that has a very real impact.

You cannot buy good recordings in other formats, in this format you can. So there's a market - not a very big one as such, and maybe created for all the wrong reasons, but it is there.

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

#263

Post by tomc1985 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 7:49 AM UTC

josteink wrote: post #223

I've done signal and sound-processing courses at the university. I know the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. I know all about samples, and digital sound not been square staircases. I know and understand how incorrect down-sampling from high frequencies can cause distortion in the form of sub-harmonics in the audioable range. I know about audible dynamic range and how many decibels of extra range 8-bits are going to give you.…

raises hand

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

#264

Post by dharma1 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 7:56 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #147

Const-me wrote: post #134

If the only thing you do with your music is listen, then yes, 24/192 delivers questionable value compared to the more popular 16/44.1 or 16/48 formats. However, all musicians I know use these high-rez formats internally. The reason for that, when you apply audio effects, especially complex VST ones, these discretization artifacts noticeably decrease the result quality. Maybe, the musicians who distribute their music…

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.

for DAW use - this has been mentioned before on this thread, but 192khz has two beneficial effects - lower latency for realtime playing, and it "forces" some synths and effects to oversample, thus reducing aliasing.

All this comes at a high computational and storage cost though.

I personally use 44khz 24bit settings for DAW use.

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

#265

Post by dom0 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 7:59 AM UTC

mohn wrote: post #173

pzone wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy works if you modify it: - 480p vs 2160p is measuring the resolution of your cell phone propped up on a pillow at the other end of your living room - experimental evidence shows that your eyesight is not good enough to pick up on the increased resolution, you've maxed out your sensory perception - Your phone stutters trying to stream at 4k so the playback might actually be worse.

The analogy with images is demonstrated in this screenshot [1], which is referenced in a StackOverflow answer on the topic of image scaling in web browsers [2]. When the high resolution image is downscaled poorly, some high (spatial) frequencies are aliased down into lower (spatial) frequencies, manifesting as blocky/jagged lines. The images are 2D data in the spatial domain, while the audio is 1D data in the tempora…

Technically this is not aliasing; rather, the large and varied non-linearities of a speaker can act like a frequency mixer, which is why you'll get a 3 kHz sound (the difference) when playing, say, 20 and 23 kHz.

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

#266

Post by kuschku » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:00 AM UTC

anyfoo wrote: post #27

trevyn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's because lossy codecs are tuned for human perceptual limitations, and when you process audio, it can "pull" areas of the sound that are otherwise hidden from your perception into perceptual ranges, analogous to how fiddling with the brightness/contrast of a highly compressed JPEG image can accentuate the artifacts.

We are not really talking about lossy codecs here, though, are we?

Actually, the article is not talking about it, but the topic very much is lossy codecs.

Specifically, if 24/192 AAC is worth it compared to 16/44.1 AAC (and the answer to that is yes, although the answer to 24/192 WAV is no)

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

#267

Post by dom0 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:03 AM UTC

astrange wrote: post #141

fusiongyro wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, the sampling theorem says you can reconstruct the exact waveform with a certain number of samples. Adding a bunch more samples bulks up the file, but you didn't need them to restore the exact waveform. However, the unnecessary samples are in the file between you and the next sample you do need. At high enough levels of waste this creates an I/O bottleneck that hampers performance. Another way to look at is…

Images and audio are pretty similar, and sampling theory works for both - a low-pass filter on audio and a blur filter on images is the same. The difference is audio is "actually" bandlimited and frequency-based, but images are "actually" spatial. When you try using frequency math on images you get artifacts called ringing, which are easy to see with JPEGs or sharp scalers like Lanczos. Of course audio isn't really f…

> The difference is audio is "actually" bandlimited and frequency-based, but images are "actually" spatial.

I.e. audio is sampled along one dimension, while images are sampled along two dimensions. Note that frequency-domain considerations play a crucial role in all optical design, including imaging sensors.

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

#268

Post by kuschku » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:06 AM UTC

agency wrote: post #77

Veratyr wrote: 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.

Assuming that you have a perfect DAC (which you don’t), with perfect analog brickwall filters (which you don’t), with no compressed audio (which isn’t the case).

With a perfect DAC, and perfect filters, and expensive headphones, there is no difference between 16bit/44.1kHz WAV and 24bit/192kHz WAV (until you add an EQ, then there is).

With a usual home DAC, and its filters, and at best $100 headphones, there is a major difference between 16/44.1 AAC and 24/192 AAC.

(And guess what the article attacked? The decision of Apple to sell lossy files in 24/192 for home usage. The discussion was never about lossless files, or professional usage)

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

#269

Post by z3t4 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:07 AM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #190

Not entirely silly. Yes, the purported benefits of this high-fidelity audio are imaginary or even include undesirable traits. However, when most "remasters" of pop music today involve the dynamics being boosted to "loudness wars" standards for a target audience of people listening to the music through earbuds in the street, the 24/192 downloads or SACD releases are often the only way to hear the album with real dynam…

Sadly most people have never experienced good sound. When you hear it though. But taste can be very different.

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

#270

Post by lz400 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:07 AM UTC

ycombinete wrote: post #251

lz400 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My anecdote is that I've done a number of these tests (Foobar has a plugin that allows you to do them on yourself), and I can reliably tell the difference between FLAC and 128 MP3, but can't tell the difference on 256 MP3 and up.

Yes, I've heard people putting the threshold in ~192kbps. Above that it's pretty much impossible these days. I can also tell the difference in 128kpbs, although sometimes it's a bit of nitpicking (can only hear differences in the sounds of hihats and things like that)