Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

people.xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 328 posts

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

#11

Post by newaccoutnas »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #9

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 su…

Umm, Nyquist-Shannon Theory? Listening to 24Bit 192Khz can actually damage the cillia in your ear

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

#12

Post by sp332 »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #9

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 su…

This was basically a PSA back when Neil Young was pushing the Pono music player and store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service)

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

#13

Post by mark-r »

martin_a wrote: post #8
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" mu…

I rip my CDs in a two-step process: first to FLAC, then convert to mp3. The mp3s go in my phone, I have 33GB so far and my collection isn't even half ripped. I haven't checked how big the FLACs are lately but I'm sure they'd be a much bigger burden.

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

#14

Post by vortico »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #9

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 su…

So you think our senses transcend what tools have the ability to measure? Maybe that was the case in 1970, but in 2000+, hearing (and vision) is completely understood scientifically and far surpassed by measuring apparatus at every frequency range. Saying otherwise is an appeal to what is called audio mysticism and is caused by placebo and confirmation bias, which was mentioned in the article.

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

#15

Post by ferongr »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #9

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 su…

If you really had any qualifications, that anti-scientific rant made the irrelevant.

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

#16

Post by mark-r »

turdnagel wrote: post #2

Should this have a (2012) tag? Neil Young did end up releasing music in this format with his Pono player, which failed[0]. [0]: http://www.noise11.com/news/r-i-p-pono-neil-young-kills-off-...

Yes, this has been their position for many years. The associated video is good too: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

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

#17

Post by tialaramex »

deevious wrote: post #6

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

The use of analogue gear in #2 is one of those things that as someone who _already believed what Monty is showing here_ I wouldn't have thought to do. But it really heads off a bunch of arguments.

And twenty years from now it's going to be hard because you'll have to scrounge the gear from a museum instead of it being available for a reasonable price from eBay or borrowing it off somebody who kept it in the cupboard after upgrading to modern digital gear. So I'm glad Monty did it in that era where the gear was still available.

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

#18

Post by vortico »

mark-r wrote: post #13
martin_a wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" mu…

I rip my CDs in a two-step process: first to FLAC, then convert to mp3. The mp3s go in my phone, I have 33GB so far and my collection isn't even half ripped. I haven't checked how big the FLACs are lately but I'm sure they'd be a much bigger burden.

This is pretty reasonable. 16/44.1 FLACs aren't that large, especially considering that 4TB HDDs are available for $70 these days.

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

#19

Post by diminish »

teknico wrote: post #10

Already discussed. Main posts: [2012] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310 [2014] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8689231 [2015] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10520639 [2017] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127633

It's a very good article which shows up again and again. Think it's 2040, singularity reached. AI runs the world and on HN we have this article popping up very frequently like every hundred Planck time unit .

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

#20

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

vortico wrote: post #7
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.

Even if the lower sample rate of 48kHz would be entirely reasonable and 96kHz is overkill, 24 bits still makes an audible difference for the material I listen to (modernist classical music and ECM jazz), which is why you can find 24/48 from some labels. For pop music, which of course is distinguished by little dynamic range, then 16 bits would be fine just like on the CD format.
Post reply on HN