24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012) • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by matwood » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

IWeldMelons wrote: post #49

vortico wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it was true, the entirety of hi-fi industry would not exist. I myself built a number of amplifiers and, after a certain threshold, roughly .02% THD (total harmonic distortion) at 20khz, there is a very little correlation between the THD (what is usually measured)numbers and perceived quality of the sound. Which means, while it is true that is everything could be measured, no one measures the right thing (perhaps s…

> the entirety of hi-fi industry would not exist.

An industry which is known to sell an enormous amount of snake oil...

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

#112

Post by magduf » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

shams93 wrote: post #109

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…

Exactly if it’s mastered wrong the nitrate has nothing to do with the issue this music would sound just as awful cut to vinyl from a bad master. Now you just can’t hear beyond 22050 so 192 is insanely wasteful. But poor mastering is absolutely the core issue not encoding algorithms

Actually, no, it might sound better cut to vinyl. Remember, vinyl doesn't have the frequency range or dynamic range that digital audio does, and it has to be mastered using the RIAA Curve because of the properties of the medium. One factor here is that the stereo separation on vinyl can't be too large, or else the needle will literally jump out of the groove! In short, you can't just take CD music (no matter how well or poorly mastered) and cut it to vinyl as-is.

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

#113

Post by gregf » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

I store stuff in flac, i got a large nas at my house. Then i can down convert to any other format I might need. I enjoy the flacs when I'm home.

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

#114

Post by gugagore » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

blattimwind wrote: post #87

IWeldMelons wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo! Exactly, Nyquist theory. But no one can make a truly good, brickwall filter at this frequency. It is much easier to make a lot less steep frequency response, whilch would start at 22 khz and would slowly go down all the way to 96 kHz. By the way, how would it damage the ears if it was thoroughly filtered?

Except that audio DACs are generally oversampling; for example, an output filter for the AD1955 DAC is only needed to reach -3 dB at 100 kHz, even if you are feeding it a 48 kHz PCM signal. This allows these DACs to produce essentially zero energy in the frequency band from Nyquist cutoff of the input signal to filter cutoff.

This resampling adds some latency, right? Ideal resampling adds infinite latency---the sinc function has infinite support.

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

#115

Post by mikeash » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

PascLeRasc wrote: post #100

mikeash wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they were wasting a bunch of money on it and trying to convince others to do the same?

How is it a waste if it's one person spending their money on something they enjoy? You're not compelled to also do that.

A reduction in their ignorance would make them enjoy the other choice just as much, but for less money. They’re spending more just because they don’t know the facts. I consider that a waste.

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

#116

Post by magduf » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #108

jlarcombe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But aren't you worried you'll lose access to your music? I have to own it! I can't have it at the whim of multiple third parties to take down as they see fit. It's too important.

So where do you store these files that you'll never lose access? CDs? People with a room full of 8 tracks or cassettes would like to have a word. HDDs? Those fail all the time, plus any sort of natural disaster could wipe out your collection. Online backup? This seems like the only real option, but for me the risk/reward just doesn't fit. At least for now, the record companies and the service providers are both incen…

You don't back up your hard drive?

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

#117

Post by lfmunoz4 » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

author doesn't take into account that although you cannot hear above 20khz or below 20hz. That doesn't mean you cannot sense it. Sound after all is just air vibrating, therefore obviously there must be an effect on the body.

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

#118

Post by widerporst » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

Kaiyou wrote: post #89

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 should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac I did a blind test between 128-mp3, 320-mp3 and flac hearing classical music. While it's true that the 128-mp3 is obvious to find, it also isn't too difficult to find the 320-mp3. Flac just sounds better. Described as a feeling, flac is more voluminous and doesn't feel cut short. For fun, I also let my parents take this test and they could tell, too. Th…

Interesting. Are you sure you were using the right settings and a recent version of LAME for this?

The only artifact I can reliably hear in 320 kbps MP3s is pre-echo, for instance with castanets, and only in a few very specific situations. Apart from this, V2 and above sounds completely indistinguishable from the original to me.

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

#119

Post by magissima » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:49 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…

One of the "nice" things about being hard of hearing is that I can't hear any difference between flac and mp3s down to around 96 or lower for most music, so hypothetically I don't have to worry about this stuff.

Of course in practice I do still keep flac rips around because I'm a data hoarder and what if I decide I want to reencode all my music to opus or something? But at least I have the option to stop caring.

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

#120

Post by hindsightbias » Wed, Mar 06, 2019, 5:52 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…

The problem is that they aren't being mastered differently - there's a website that lists vinyl releases (can't find the link) and compares it to the CD masters and they're often the same thing. Older CD masters from the 80's or 90's are re-released compressed to drive sales. The latest vinyl fad has just become a new means for record companies to to exploit a "new" medium and race for the bottom - they know many new listeners on cheap players actually just want to hear what they get out of the earbud.

Releated: https://thevinylfactory.com/features/analogue-digital-vinyl-...

There are, of course, those brands that care about remasters, but I don't think they're a majority of the market unless you're looking at classical and older jazz.