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

31–40 of 328 posts

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

#31

Post by PascLeRasc »

vortico wrote: post #14
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.

Yes, that's what I think. I don't believe that hearing is completely understood scientifically. You're welcome to disagree.

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

#32

Post by floatingatoll »

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…

I have a hard-won TDS meter that lets me measure the total dissolved solids in a cup of coffee.

Like music, coffee is an entirely subjective experience. Like music, distilling it down to data does _not_ implicitly destroy the experience. Judging a cup of coffee good or bad solely based on data is impossible. Maybe this cup is intentionally overextracted and that song is intentionally overmastered. That doesn’t guarantee that the coffee or song are good or bad, it simply helps you understand why you do or don’t like it.

After making a thousand cups of coffee with a TDS meter, I can predict what would make a cup of coffee better without needing the meter anymore, and I’ve learned that I care more about enjoying coffee than I do about perfecting it.

If you sat through a blind test of a thousand songs, and at the end discovered that you _can_ distinguish 16/44 from 32/384, you might still _choose_ not to care. Most people don’t want every cup of coffee to be competition grade because it’s really expensive (density sorting), really difficult (dual-wielding flow-restricted kettles), and the payoff isn’t worth it every day to them. Maybe that’s how you’d feel after A/B testing 1,000 songs, as I did after pouring 1,000 cups. Maybe not.

For most people, knowing that 16/48 is indistinguishable or better than 32/384 will save them thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of audio setup, tuning, design, repurchasing, etc.

For a few people, it’s worth it to them to go competition, either in coffee or in music. That’s certainly their right, but it’s not at all guaranteed to make them any happier than they would be with 16/48.

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

#33

Post by andybak »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #20
vortico wrote: 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.

> 24 bits still makes an audible difference

The article (and numerous other sources I've seen over the years) disagrees with you so I'm curious why you're so certain?

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

#34

Post by aidenn0 »

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…

MP3s at any bitrate cannot properly reproduce certain sounds, as preecho can happen and it is fairly easy to train yourself to notice it. Pretty much any modern lossy format can be made transparent at high enough bitrates though.

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

#35

Post by andybak »

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…

> "Health 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 medicine."

Would you accept that argument from someone purporting to provide medical advice?

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

#36

Post by aidenn0 »

The only rebuttal to this that I have found compelling is that 24/192 downloads make sense if you are going to sample the music in your own creations. Recording and mixing with extra dynamic range, combined with only needing to low-pass once at the end has demonstrable advantages. Of course this was a response to marketing that was definitely not targeted at samplers, so it's not so much of a rebuttal as arguing at cross points.

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

#37

Post by npongratz »

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…

> But who is using MP3 players these days any more?

I use my iPod Shuffle exclusively for portable music listening. Cannot beat the form factor, only have to charge it once a week or two (and sometime far longer between charges), and helps me relegate my mobile surveillance/communications device to phone-duties-only as much as possible.

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

#38

Post by SamWhited »

aidenn0 wrote: post #36

The only rebuttal to this that I have found compelling is that 24/192 downloads make sense if you are going to sample the music in your own creations. Recording and mixing with extra dynamic range, combined with only needing to low-pass once at the end has demonstrable advantages. Of course this was a response to marketing that was definitely not targeted at samplers, so it's not so much of a rebuttal as arguing at c…

yup; from the piece: "An engineer also requires more than 16 bits during mixing and mastering"

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

#39

Post by bch »

aidenn0 wrote: post #34
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…

MP3s at any bitrate cannot properly reproduce certain sounds, as preecho can happen and it is fairly easy to train yourself to notice it. Pretty much any modern lossy format can be made transparent at high enough bitrates though.

Example?

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

#40

Post by aidenn0 »

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.

If you are concerned about space, consider vorbis, AAC, or opus. They all will achieve a higher quality at a given bitrate (or equivalently a lower bitrate for a given quality).
Post reply on HN