Live data from Hacker News

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

people.xiph.org

21–30 of 328 posts

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

#21

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-...

Footer of the page suggests 2024, not 2012, as the latest edit date. You can ask the mods to add it by emailing them (link in HN footer).

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

#22
post #12

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)

Tidal still sells on this basis too.

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

#23
post #13
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.

I do the same. MP3s of yy entire CD collection sit on an SD card in my car and a Sandisk Ultra Fit USB drive in my wife's car. The FLAC files live on an external USB drive in my home.

I still have Spotify for the times I want to listen to something I don't own or want to listen to one specific song without drilling down multiple menus to find it.

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

#24

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

I'm curious why you torrent music still when streaming is so widely available and free/cheap?

I did a lot of torrenting back in the 2000s, but thinking back on it I spent a ton of time finding things, organizing my file system, transcoding, editing metadata, etc. I do not miss that hassle at all now.

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

#25

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…

Sorry, I read your comment twice... do you actually dispute any of the points made in the article, or are you simply wishing that people didn't care?

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

#26
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only issue with low bitrates is noise floor, so if you're hearing other distortions, it's not caused by the bitrate but maybe your room treatment or headphone drivers. A recording would have to have a hilariously large amount of headroom for 16-bit noise floor to be noticible when the music is played at a desired level, and while symphonic and jazz recordings have ridiculously high dynamic range, it's not 100dB of headroom, maybe 60, so 16-bit should be fine.

If you still think it's a problem, adding good dithering with ffmpeg's quantizer/resampler flags will make the noise floor 6-10dB smaller.

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

#27
post #24

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

I'm curious why you torrent music still when streaming is so widely available and free/cheap? I did a lot of torrenting back in the 2000s, but thinking back on it I spent a ton of time finding things, organizing my file system, transcoding, editing metadata, etc. I do not miss that hassle at all now.

I spend about half of every year traveling, often in particularly undeveloped countries and/or far from a mobile signal. Having my entire music collection on a portable hard drive is more convenient for me personally than being bound to streaming.

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

#28
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you torrent music still when streaming is so widely available and free/cheap? I did a lot of torrenting back in the 2000s, but thinking back on it I spent a ton of time finding things, organizing my file system, transcoding, editing metadata, etc. I do not miss that hassle at all now.

I spend about half of every year traveling, often in particularly undeveloped countries and/or far from a mobile signal. Having my entire music collection on a portable hard drive is more convenient for me personally than being bound to streaming.

Makes sense, thanks for answering!

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

#29

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 two wines were chemically identical but someone claimed that one of them tasted “warmer” than the other, would you just go with that?

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

#30
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN