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

231–240 of 328 posts

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

#231

Post by hunter2_ »

stcredzero wrote: post #169
mruts wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are easy ways to kill dynamic range with an algorithm. On windows this is called "loudness equalization." On the otherhand, there is no way to go back from little dynamic range to more dynamic range. So I think it makes sense that records are mastered with a lot of dynamic range, so the people who actually enjoy music can enjoy it, and the people who don't can just equalize it themselves.

But there are easy ways to kill dynamic range with an algorithm. On windows this is called "loudness equalization." On the otherhand, there is no way to go back from little dynamic range to more dynamic range. So I think it makes sense that records are mastered with a lot of dynamic range, so the people who actually enjoy music can enjoy it, and the people who don't can just equalize it themselves. You do realize tha…

You're right except for one thing: nobody here was talking about altering frequency response. Windows loudness equalization is not equalization, despite the silly name. Ironically, I imagine Microsoft specifically didn't call it compression because most consumers only think of the other compression. Good grief.

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

#232

Post by hunter2_ »

ovao wrote: post #185
glitchc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t radio a big factor in this? Broadcast radio is noisy and has pretty limited dynamic range. This may be a cause.

Radio is actually compressed in real-time by use of broadcast compressors, so they solve the problem rather directly.

Exactly, radio would be relatively unaffected by masters having high dynamic range.

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

#233

Post by stordoff »

SloopJon wrote: post #174
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…

> That being said, I think flac is generally a good choice for a music collection. One other consideration for a music collection from CDs is getting a good rip in the first place. I've had some horrible rips in iTunes, even with error correction enabled. I have much more confidence using a tool like XLD that supports AccurateRip, which probably doesn't work with a lossy format. If you want to transcode after the rip…

IIRC, XLD rips to WAV first anyway, then compresses it to FLAC (I know EAC does).

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

#234

Post by hunter2_ »

ecocentrik wrote: post #182
rurp wrote: post #173

I have a related question that someone here probably has a good answer for. I recently heard a song I like on the radio while driving. Shortly after it played I pulled up the same song on Spotify with my phone, plugged my phone into the car stereo through the headphone jack, and played it. The quality was MUCH worse. What's the likely reason for that? I know very little about audio but my best guesses are: 1. The med…

3. The A/D converter used by your car stereo headphone jack is low quality and introduced sampling artifacts. 4. You have a high definition radio and were listening to a high quality digital signal over FM as opposed to an FM analog signal. It's probably a combination of all of these.

There is no "high definition radio." In the context of FM radio the H stands for hybrid and the D stands for digital. The digital often sounds worse when you compare them. Less noise for sure, but synthetic treble, almost as bad as Sirius XM.

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

#235

Post by nitrogen »

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…

At least for now, the record companies and the service providers are both incentivized to have as much of their catalogs as possible on streaming services. Until that changes, streaming works for many.

There is a solution for the rest: let me mix songs from Spotify, my own library, and any other services I pay for in a single playlist.

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

#236

Post by jrace »

em500 wrote: post #205
jrace wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite 30 -> 55+ is where we would expect to see presbycusis, And even though you may have diminished hearing you still have awareness of frequencies above 8Khz.

At 30 we're looking at typically 5db loss over 8khz, at 40 more than 10db. Sure, we're not talking about total hearing loss, but the reduced sensitivity is going to overwhelm any real artifacts from 16/44 that one might have genuinely detected at 20. Imagined artifacts will probably remain or might even increase though, since people typically have much higher spending power at 40. :)

Any evidence of this?

I worked in audiology for my entire 30's and tested my own hearing (biocalibration) once a week.

Never once saw a reduction in my hearing thresholds (250Hz - 8kHz)

Nor have I read any supporting documentation that agrees with a reduction of 8kHz thresholds before the age of 55.

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

#237

Post by stcredzero »

jabl wrote: post #192
stcredzero wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since everyone is listening of crappy earbuds, they compress the hell out of it and destroy all dynamic range. More compression and less dynamic range is beneficial for certain environments. Noisy subways. Watching TV in a noisy downtown apartment. Basically, crappy, noisy environments. In those, compression will help you actually hear the music and speech. However, the fact that this should be done in the master is…

> More compression and less dynamic range is beneficial for certain environments. Noisy subways. Watching TV in a noisy downtown apartment. Basically, crappy, noisy environments. Good point, I think particularly for movies or such this makes sense. I want to be able to watch a movie such that I hear what the characters are speaking, without blowing my windows out of their frames during some action scene. Yes, I reali…

Yes, I realize in real life explosions, guns etc. are really loud, and this makes the movie less realistic.

Really loud? Ear-damaging loud! When the realism becomes actually endangering to your health, your escapist media has gone a bit too far.

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

#238

Post by stcredzero »

hunter2_ wrote: post #231
stcredzero wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are easy ways to kill dynamic range with an algorithm. On windows this is called "loudness equalization." On the otherhand, there is no way to go back from little dynamic range to more dynamic range. So I think it makes sense that records are mastered with a lot of dynamic range, so the people who actually enjoy music can enjoy it, and the people who don't can just equalize it themselves. You do realize tha…

You're right except for one thing: nobody here was talking about altering frequency response. Windows loudness equalization is not equalization, despite the silly name. Ironically, I imagine Microsoft specifically didn't call it compression because most consumers only think of the other compression. Good grief.

You're right except for one thing: nobody here was talking about altering frequency response.

If you're generally talking about "Loudness Equalization" then in many cases, it really is equalization. I don't know about anyone else, bit I've been talking generally about loudness equalization the whole time.

Windows loudness equalization is not equalization, despite the silly name. Ironically, I imagine Microsoft specifically didn't call it compression because most consumers only think of the other compression. Good grief.

Well, you learn something new every day. In this case, it's yet another time marketers have completely diluted the technical meaning of terminology.

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

#239

Post by Daishiman »

paulmd wrote: post #193
PaulHoule wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dynamic range is a solved problem if people cared. You attach some metadata to the audio file that says certain parts should be level boosted in a noisy environment and there you go.

And this is not a theoretical solution, this is literally just ReplayGain operating in track-level mode.

ReplayGain only changes track gain, not dynamic range.

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

#240

Post by glitchc »

hunter2_ wrote: post #232
ovao wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radio is actually compressed in real-time by use of broadcast compressors, so they solve the problem rather directly.

Exactly, radio would be relatively unaffected by masters having high dynamic range.

Oh I had no idea. Fantastic.
Post reply on HN