Live data from Hacker News

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

people.xiph.org

291–300 of 328 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your examples all have good reasons though. > Why have an engine in my car that can exceed all speed limits? So I can drive faster than the speed limit if I want to. (And I do) > Why have a heating and cooling system in my house that can exceed any comfortable level? Well, you shouldn't oversize your HVAC system if you want to save money. But it's nice to be able to achieve your target temp in a reasonable time perio…

More analogies— It's like printing your brochures at 160,000 DPI instead of 2,400 DPI. The difference is entirely imperceptible by the human sensory system without artificial augmentation. It's like capturing the invisible infrared light spectrum in a cinematic movie camera so it can be projected back to cinemagoers as infrared light in the theatre.

Yours are much better than mine. Closer to the real issue with 24/192.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back up for a second with the last paragraph there: if the record was mastered for a room sized stereo, it assumes that the room adds its reverb to the sound. With loudspeakers, the room is a distorting filter in the signal path. This and the HRTF distortion are skipped over when listening to headphones/earbuds. So it does make a lot of sense to add these effects to the audio signal in the headphones case. Done right…

Right. Only, the accompanying obnoxious rhetoric was along the lines that those studio engineers didn't have the techniques and equipment for this modern sound, and that these old albums need a face lift.

Urgh, this is just crazy talk.

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

#293
post #71
post #6

This reminds me of Monty's A Digital Media Primer for Geeks[0] and Digital Show & Tell[1] - the delivery, the explanations and the way the experiments are set up is superb. [0] https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml [1] https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

The article's author, Chris "Monty" Montgomery, is one of the authors of Ogg Vorbis [1] and Opus [2]. It puzzles me that many people don't yet know about Opus. Let me quote the FAQ [3]: "Does Opus make all those other lossy codecs obsolete? Yes. From a technical point of view (loss, delay, bitrates, ...) Opus renders Speex obsolete and should also replace Vorbis and the common proprietary codecs too (e.g. AAC, MP3, .…

I love opus just as much as I loved musepack and vorbis, the one thing all of them lack to one degree or another is support and hardware acceleration. If I throw an opus file on my Android 8.1 phone, it has no idea what to do with it unless I manually open it with vlc or foobar. For the regular user the support needs to be seamless, otherwise they are not going to bother.

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

#294
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You also lose some of the fullness on the extreme low end, it's noticeable even with a fairly low end subwoofer. Something also ends up missing in the midranges. I was working on a track once where all I had was 320 mp3 version of the vocals. At some point I replaced it with a flac copy of the same vocal recording, from the same original wav source and the difference was noticeable right away without changing any of…

The low end thing just isn't true at all, and I don't know where that myth comes from.

I have a room-corrected setup with two properly adjusted subs, and MP3 does just fine on deep bass content.

Regarding solo vocals, the history of the MP3 format says: "The song "Tom's Diner" by Suzanne Vega was the first song used by Karlheinz Brandenburg to develop the MP3. Brandenburg adopted the song for testing purposes, listening to it again and again each time refining the scheme, making sure it did not adversely affect the subtlety of Vega's voice".

That's not to say that they did a perfect job, but human voice was a very high priority.

And the encoders have continued to improve. So an earlier encoders may have messed with the voices, but a reasonably recent version of LAME would do so much better.

MP3's real weakness is fast sharp transients, such as castanets and harpsichord in sparse recordings, where no other sounds can mask them. It's a fundamental weakness in the format, and cannot be completely solved.

Newer formats such as Ogg Vorbis, Opus and AAC do not suffer from this weakness.

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

#295
post #8
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…

I use my phone as an MP3 (Opus, actually) player, with a selection of music from my ~20K track collection. This works better for me than unlimited access to all music, because it makes me have to listen to a smaller selection of content, so I give each album more attention.

While I do also have a Spotify Premium subscription, I am using it a lot less now than I used to. At least 10% of the album's I have simply aren't available on Spotify, and possibly never will be. Underground self-released artists very often don't bother with streaming services, or are outright against the entire concept in the first place, claiming that it devalues the music. It certainly doesn't pay very well. There's also the issue of music disappearing because of rightsholder disputes, such as most of the Motörhead discography being unavailable for an extended period of time. That sort of thing just isn't acceptable.

Honestly I've come to realize that I prefer a smaller nicely curated collection over a massive unwieldy semi-unlimited library, with questionable curation. I have reported hundreds of curation errors to Spotify, but they keep popping up, especially errors involving two identically-named artists being mixed together.

I will admit that I am very particular about tagging, labeling and sorting by genre. Spotify is woefully inadequate in this regard. For my own collection, I am in full control, which makes it much easier to sort and handle.

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

#296
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article's author, Chris "Monty" Montgomery, is one of the authors of Ogg Vorbis [1] and Opus [2]. It puzzles me that many people don't yet know about Opus. Let me quote the FAQ [3]: "Does Opus make all those other lossy codecs obsolete? Yes. From a technical point of view (loss, delay, bitrates, ...) Opus renders Speex obsolete and should also replace Vorbis and the common proprietary codecs too (e.g. AAC, MP3, .…

I thought for a moment that Spotify uses Opus, but it turns out that they use Vorbis. Wonder why a switch isn't on their roadmap.

Do they publish their roadmap?

I'd imagine they consider what they have is good enough considering the backwards compatability issue it'd likely introduce.

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

#297
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Online backup? This seems like the only real option, but for me the risk/reward just doesn't fit. What risk? You can privately store your music anywhere, it's completely legal to do so.

I'm considering which online backup service to use for my music collection, is there a particular one you'd recommend, other than the obvious players like Dropbox, Google Drive and OneDrive?

Preferably not hosted in the US, for privacy/bandwidth reasons.

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

#298
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Windows "foobar2000" is fantastic for playback and transcoding, looks pretty basic, but performs well and has lot's of plugins to modify look and feel as well as extra functionality. On Mac, XLD is great for ripping and transcoding, but I'm not sure what's the hot favourite for playback these days.

Thanks for the pointer. I'm largely on Linux and my wife largely on Mac, but I'm sure I can spin up a VM somewhere if the software is worth it.

Oh snap! Haven't used Windows or Mac outside of occasional work use for >10 years - all BSD or Linux (mostly Debian since then)... I've heard good reports from people using foobar2000 under Wine, but on Linux there's many fine options depending on your preferences - Audacious or Deadbeef are more like foobar, or there's Quod Libet or Ex Falso if you prefer something "bigger". Personally I haven't used these GUI players for a while as I tend to have a terminal window always open and just point `mpv` to a directory, playlist or file. I use `ffmpeg` (compiled with recent codecs) for transcoding and for ripping there's `RubyRipper` or `abcde`.

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

#299
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…

Most LPs these days are made from the same masters as the CDs (or downloads/streaming), with only the bare minimum of processing done to make them viable to pressing to vinyl, ie. mono bass and RIAA equalization. Only releases marketed specifically to audiophiles tend to get any extra effort put into them, and that is a vanishingly small segment of customers.

The loudness war isn't happening because of "crappy earbuds", the earbuds included with smartphones have been rather good for a long time now. The ones that came with my Samsung S8 were designed partially by AKG (Samsung owns the Harman Group, including AKG) and are really damn good. Apple's included earbuds are also very good now, a far cry from the original iPod earbuds, which were decidedly mediocre.

The real issue is radio and Youtube/streaming services from before they implemented loudness targets, and it's been going on since the 50s at least, just listen to some old singles from back then, they're mastered as loud as they possibly could, with the technology of the day. The objective has always been to make your song sound louder than the next song, because louder music sounds more impressive to a casual listener, it's simply more attention-grabbing.

In the beginning of the digital era, there was actually some hope that better dynamics would happen. In the guidelines for Sony's earliest digital recording equipment, the recommendation was to target an average level of -20dBFS, to use very little or no compression, and "let peaks fall where they may". Just imagine that, 20dB headroom!

In the worst days of the loudness war (~early 2000s) lot of music was mastered with barely 3-4dB of dynamic range, with peaks banging hard against 0dBFS. I have some CDs from that era, and they clip and distort like crazy, because everything was just pushed to 11, to be as loud as possible. "Californication" by Red Hot Chili Peppers is an excellent example, it's absolutely horrid.

Since then, two major things have happened to improve sound quality somewhat. Firstly the compression devices and plugins have improved massively, modern sidechain compression is really impressive, entire genres like EDM/dubstep simply wouldn't exist if not for the improvements in compression tech. Secondly, all of the streaming services use volume normalization now, with a set average sound level. Songs can peak over this average value, but the average must be in line with the target. This also results in brickwalled "turn everything to 11" tracks sound a lot quieter, because they have no peaks to use the additional dynamic range available.

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says: "[...] does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions." Note the words "theoretical" and "ideal". In your post it sounds like you're claiming that you can regularly hear a difference under normal listening conditions - which contradicts my reading of that sentence. My gut feeling is that the difference you're hearing is placebo. To put it another way -…

The article is making numerous inaccurate statements, because it's got an agenda and the author is invested in lossy media encoding quite heavily. There's a degree to where it's relative: in the car with the windows open you'll not be hearing 16 bits of audio resolution. Monty's gotta monty, and this argument has been going on from the very earliest days of digital: back when people behaved exactly the same way over…

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm arguing for the power of human self-deception. I feel the same way about connoisseurship in most other realms; food and wine being the obvious examples.

I believe it's a combination of imagined differences and barely perceptible differences elevated to implausible heights of significance.

Even if one can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits it will be almost imperceptible in most listening conditions and when it is perceptible it will on the threshold - and certainly too subtle to affect the quality of the experience in any meaningful way.

Post reply on HN