24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120).

The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy earbuds, they compress the hell out of it and destroy all dynamic range. This is why when downloading music you should avoid remasters (there are some exceptions, like the Beatles mono and stereo boxed sets that came out awhile ago) and go for the first edition presses.

This is also why modern vinyl releases sound a lot better than digital: they are mastered differently since its assumed everyone is going to be listening on good equipment.

That being said, I think flac is generally a good choice for a music collection. You can’t transcode mp3s without killing the quality so if you ever want to convert formats (like for a mp3 player), you should stick with flac (16-bit, 48hz).

The original idea of 24-bit 192hz flac was for vinyl rips, where hypothetically you might be getting more information.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#5

Post by Mediterraneo10 » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

Thanks to this article, when I torrent music that is shared in 24/192 format, I always resample to 24/96:

ffmpeg -i foo.flac -ar 96000 -acodec flac bar.flac

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#6

Post by deevious » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

This reminds me of Monty's A Digital Media Primer for Geeks[0] and Digital Show & Tell[1] - the delivery, the explanations and the way the experiments are set up is superb.

[0] https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml [1] https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#7

Post by vortico » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #5

Thanks to this article, when I torrent music that is shared in 24/192 format, I always resample to 24/96: ffmpeg -i foo.flac -ar 96000 -acodec flac bar.flac

To thank the article even more, you could resample to 16/48kHz.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#8

Post by martin_a » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

mruts wrote: post #4

Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…

But who is using MP3 players these days any more?

I found myself to buy an iPod in... like... 2011 or so. Converted all the CDs I had to FLAC because losless was the way to go.

Two or three years (let it be 5, doesn't matter) pass by, I got a better Smartphone, Spotify Premium and don't touch my 1xx GB of FLAC music anymore, because I don't want to carry around another device etc.

I'm not sure but I think "owning" music like in "I got some files here on my drive" seems dead to me. That obviously has downsides but I feel lucky to use Spotify these days and being able to discover new music every day and listen to all of it on the go without buying something, converting it and more.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#9

Post by PascLeRasc » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

I have a degree in electrical engineering, and I'm currently in a graduate course on computer music systems, so I hope that qualifies me enough to avoid the author's ad hominem attacks he seasons this stinkpiece with.

I can't stand seeing frequency response charts and scientific measurements in articles about audio. Like my favorite audio reviewer says [1], I listen to music for enjoyment and I talk about audio in subjective terms like "warm", "lush", "wide soundstage" - not "unexpected 14.5kHz falloff". I don't go to a restaurant and demand to see pH tests or measure the temperature of my steak myself. I'm not going to do blind A/B listening tests because I don't care about that. If you told me you liked one wine, would it be appropriate for me to say "No you didn't. You don't have taste buds that can tell the difference between that and any other wine."? Of course not.

Music is an entirely subjective experience and trying to distill it down to data is both condescending and telling of how little an author cares about music. Even if you don't care about subjective experiences of audio, why are you so bothered by letting people like what they like? How does it affect your life that I listen to music encoded at 24/196?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlCG2fK-abo