Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

people.xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 326 posts

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#81

Post by TylerE »

cmer wrote: post #22
amouat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no sound engineer, but as far as I can tell, the main point of that paper is that some instruments produce harmonics at frequencies greater than 20kHz, not that these frequencies matter to humans. However, section X references other papers that apparently make this claim. Just because it is difficult to record a triangle does not necessarily mean it is impossible to accurately recreate the sound (to human ears) u…

The only "good sounding" triangles you'll hear are those buried in a mix. Alone, it always sounds weird and "muted". EDIT: Listen to the triangle at the beginning of Rush's YYZ. It's an old recording, but it sounds significantly worse than the analog version. It's been digitally mastered some time ago so if it was mastered today, it would probably sound better, but still not great. I heard a rumor that Rush is remast…

Not a very good example, because that's a Crotale (A Flat, ~4" cymbal, basically), not a triangle.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#82

Post by Anechoic »

cynicalkane wrote: post #68
glassx wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Harmonics are never exactly double, triple the fundamental. Those would be mostly inaudible. But you get the idea. Actually, they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics

The second half of the statement is wrong, but the first half is right. Harmonics in real-world instruments are not usually exact multiples of the fundamental. A simple diffeq model of a rigid oscillator will show you this mathematically. An extreme example is present on modern pianos, where the high rigidity of the loud, heavy piano strings can cause tuners to stretch the lowest and highest notes as much as a half-s…

Harmonics in real-world instruments are not usually exact multiples of the fundamental. A simple diffeq model of a rigid oscillator will show you this mathematically.

That is absolutely incorrect, mathematically speaking, harmonics are by definition "integral multiples of the fundamental." (Fundamentals of Acoustics, Kinsler & Frey).

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#83

Post by yzhou »

The hearing of ears is a time-domain thing, not a frequency domain thing. It's the frequency response of all the frequency components added together. people might not be able to respond well to a single high frequency tone, but might respond well to a combination of tones.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#84

Post by noonespecial »

zb wrote: post #79
noonespecial wrote: post #73

I was under the impression that two inaudible high frequency tones could interfere with each other to create an audible interference pattern. (I think known as a "beat frequency"). If this is the case, then all of the arguments in the world about the maximum audible single frequency are irrelevant. Imagine music composed entirely of these beat frequencies and performed with a pair of oscillators between 25kHz and 35k…

If the beat frequency is audible, it will be on the recording. Obviously.

That would suppose that the recording device precisely matched the orientation of the listener, and the recording was not created digitally in (multi-track fashion for example). There would have to be air space in order for the interference pattern to set up in.

So you'd be right if your mics were head spaced and in the venue. But you'd still have secondary data, with the original lost.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#85

Post by waqf »

femto wrote: post #41
leephillips wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked article was accurate. You are confused. "I'm an ex-audio engineer" Hard to believe. "The distinct sound of the triangle constitutes of a high fundamental frequency, ballpark 10kHz" That's a pretty high note - higher than the top key on the piano. But an "audio engineer" would know that. "many very high-pitch harmonics" Since the next harmonic after the fundamental would be at 20khz, which only young people…

Playing Devil's Advocate... The statement that frequencies above 20kHz don't matter rests upon the assumption that the ear is linear. If the ear is not linear (I don't know whether it is not not) then frequencies above 20kHz will matter, as the ear will be able to mix higher frequencies down to less than 20kHz. For example, if we have frequencies of 56kHz and 59kHz, the ear MIGHT be able to discern a difference frequ…

Nonlinearity of the ear is thought to be the explanation for sum and difference tones, which most certainly exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#86

Post by xiphmont »

sjwright wrote: post #78

I must say I get rather irritated when people spend time worrying about dubious 'tweaker' methods to improve their audio, when the most under-performing component of most people's sound equipment also has the lowest-hanging fruit: The room itself. When people ask me where they should spend money to improve the quality of their hi-fi or home theater system, in nearly every case my response will be something like "get…

Amen. Someone got the point of the article.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#87

Post by glassx »

cynicalkane wrote: post #68
glassx wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Harmonics are never exactly double, triple the fundamental. Those would be mostly inaudible. But you get the idea. Actually, they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics

The second half of the statement is wrong, but the first half is right. Harmonics in real-world instruments are not usually exact multiples of the fundamental. A simple diffeq model of a rigid oscillator will show you this mathematically. An extreme example is present on modern pianos, where the high rigidity of the loud, heavy piano strings can cause tuners to stretch the lowest and highest notes as much as a half-s…

> And when your oscillator is no longer one-dimensional, most harmonics aren't even close to integer multiples. The harmonics of bells, cymbals and drums are all over the place. That's what gives them their percussive sound.

But those aren't harmonics, they're inharmonic partials.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#88

Post by sjwright »

yzhou wrote: post #69
hackermom wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same goes for 16/24 bit, however, the difference between 16 and 24 bit is actually audible No, the difference is not audible at all. At 16 bits of depth on a normal low-level audio signal (~0.3 volts), we're talking about less than 0.000005 volts per amplitude step. This difference gets lost in the THD already at the DAC in your audio output stage. Then it gets lost again in the amplifier. And again in the cable to y…

why do you think "This difference gets lost in the THD already at the DAC "? Do you have numbers to back it up? What's the noise floor of DAC? What's the noise floor of an output stage? Do you have the number?

The number is somewhere between the amplitude of an ant pissing on cotton, and an ant not even thinking about pissing on cotton.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#89

Post by cmer »

TylerE wrote: post #81
cmer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "good sounding" triangles you'll hear are those buried in a mix. Alone, it always sounds weird and "muted". EDIT: Listen to the triangle at the beginning of Rush's YYZ. It's an old recording, but it sounds significantly worse than the analog version. It's been digitally mastered some time ago so if it was mastered today, it would probably sound better, but still not great. I heard a rumor that Rush is remast…

Not a very good example, because that's a Crotale (A Flat, ~4" cymbal, basically), not a triangle.

Wow! I didn't know that! All these years I was convinced it was a triangle just like pretty much everybody I guess. Thanks :)

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#90

Post by TylerE »

agentgt wrote: post #76

I know this is slightly tangential but are hi-end DACs really worth it? I have always been amazed how much audiophile DACs cost ($300-1000). The reality is I listen to 320kbps music that was most likely recorded at 44100. DAC technology is not exactly new. So why the price? Another tangent: To me it seems audio engineering should fix the "woofer". That is it seems subwoofers have terrible distortion.

A low-end dedicated DAC is likely to be a substantial upgrade over a built-in soundcard (I'm assuming we're talking PC sound here). A PC case is a pretty noisy place, electrically - I know one one work PC I had once you could actually here the mouse move, if you had heaphones on and cranked the volume with nothing playing - horizontal and vertical movement had different frequencies.

The move from a low end ($150-300) DAC to one much more expensive will be considerably less drastic, and likely won't matter until you've dropped at least $5k in to the rest of your system.

That said, you may already own a DAC without realising it...as long as you're taking the singal out _digitally_ (e.g. SP-DIF or digital coax) to an external receiver, you're already in a pretty decent place.

Post reply on HN