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

211–220 of 328 posts

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

#211

Post by ken »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #187
nirvdrum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off topic, but do you use something other than iTunes for this process? I'm looking for a good way to manage a FLAC library.

As far as I am aware, iTunes is not even able to play back FLACs, so when I am on a Mac, I use Clementine, ( https://www.clementine-player.org ), or cmus, ( https://cmus.github.io ). Converting etc. I do exclusively on my Linux desktop, so can't help you there.

iTunes doesn't support FLAC, but it does support ALAC, whose implementation is also open-source. And it has a neat feature where it can store ALAC on your computer, and automatically transcode to a (much smaller) lossy format when syncing to a mobile device.

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

#212

Post by mrob »

iaresee wrote: post #132
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…

> 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. I'm going to disagree here. They are mastered differently because the physical limitations of the media require them to be mastered differently _and_ it just so happens that the physical limitations help limit mastering tricks in a way that prod…

You can put brickwalled audio on a vinyl record and have it play just fine if you cut it at a lower volume. This negates the reason for mastering it that way in the first place, but it's cheaper than redoing the mastering, and many people buying vinyl only do so for the image. See:

https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)#My...

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

#213

Post by Florin_Andrei »

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…

> modern vinyl releases sound a lot better than digital

Look, I actually grew up with vinyl and 4-track tape, and audio cassettes. Unlike most folks being all trendy and hip nowadays, I've years of using that stuff.

Analog is shit. It's noisy, has a ton of distortion, and it gets shittier every time you copy it. Oh, and if you just keep it in storage, guess what, it decays just by sitting there (vinyl collects dust and scratches when used, slightly different).

In 2002 I built my DAW (digital audio workstation) and recorded my first tracks in 24 bit digital. Zero noise, zero distortion, no generation loss. It was like alien technology.

Digital is better in every way, by a wide margin. Period.

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/awyy1q/this_pre...

Current mastering practices prevailing in the industry make no difference on this matter. Analog is still garbage. Find digital copies that are mastered properly and you'll be fine.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #187
nirvdrum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off topic, but do you use something other than iTunes for this process? I'm looking for a good way to manage a FLAC library.

As far as I am aware, iTunes is not even able to play back FLACs, so when I am on a Mac, I use Clementine, ( https://www.clementine-player.org ), or cmus, ( https://cmus.github.io ). Converting etc. I do exclusively on my Linux desktop, so can't help you there.

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by criddell »

jlarcombe wrote: post #61
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…

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.

Do you feel the same about cable TV or Netflix?

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

#216

Post by wishinghand »

mark-r wrote: post #149
aidenn0 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I'm not that concerned, 256K mp3 has been good enough. Although it wouldn't be hard to automate a conversion to another format for my entire collection, given that I have lossless originals.

If I have a large FLAC collection and want to export the whole thing to MP3 or AAC copies, what would I do to automate that?

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

#217

Post by criddell »

rograndom wrote: post #208
mark-r wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've been ripping to FLAC, and then convert to ALAC via avconv. The ALAC files go into iTunes, FLAC files stay on my server as an "archive". I then let iTunes convert the files it syncs to my phone / ipad to which ever size I need for that device, and I can still listen to uncompressed songs when I'm at my desk. I keep the Flac around in case sometime in the future I want to change formats for whatever reason.

Why do you think FLAC is better than ALAC for your archive? They are both open source, lossless formats.

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

#218

Post by ValentineC »

some-guy wrote: post #46
mruts wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I never used CDs. Unfortunately what.cd got taken down, but a couple years ago, it was probably the biggest and most complete collection of music in the world. Nowadays, I also just use spotify since I don’t have a quality source for music. But if what.cd was still around, I would dump spotify in a second.

what.cd was continued by redacted.ch, and the community is currently quite strong.

There is also Orpheus (nee Apollo, Xanax) and notwhat.cd, which spread the community out a bit, but also helps increase the bus factor.

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

#219

Post by ValentineC »

zepearl wrote: post #186
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…

> 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. Sorry, I don't know much about sound so here comes probably the most stupid question of the day (but hope never dies): does this mean that I might get better sound if I would buy a vinyl & one of those turntables which can directly digitize to U…

(Assuming you're okay with piracy…) You're better off searching for vinyl rips where people with good equipment have done the heavy lifting for you.

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

#220

Post by madengr »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #213
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…

> modern vinyl releases sound a lot better than digital Look, I actually grew up with vinyl and 4-track tape, and audio cassettes. Unlike most folks being all trendy and hip nowadays, I've years of using that stuff. Analog is shit. It's noisy, has a ton of distortion, and it gets shittier every time you copy it. Oh, and if you just keep it in storage, guess what, it decays just by sitting there (vinyl collects dust a…

Couldn’t agree more. I grew up with cassette and LP. First time I heard a CD, specifically Pink Floyd’s Money with the cash register, it was jaw dropping. LPs are cool for the artwork, but that’s it.

That being said, I still only buy music in CD, due to all the hassle of DRM and playback. I just want to drop in a CD and listen to the entire album, not futz with computers, encoders, and software.

I have a simple CD player, kit built tube amp, and homemade single driver speakers.

Post reply on HN