24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012) • Hacker News Board

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#51

Post by Blackthorn » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:10 PM UTC

evo wrote: post #49

Blackthorn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tough to tell without specific names, but I imagine a lot of particularly old* VSTs were written to use naive sawtooths rather than perfect band-limited ones, which would have terrible aliasing at 44.1 khz. Oversampling those would help a lot ! * Some people are still making this mistake, despite information on the (many) ways to do it the right way being widely and freely available!

I wonder if there's also distortion or ring modulation stages where some of the energy above hearing range might spill into audible sidebands if they're not nyquist-limited first.

Yeah, that's the "rest of the synth" part that's more vulnerable to aliasing.

There's some ways to do band-limited distortion but...they aren't nearly as widespread, easy, or universal as band-limited oscillators.

Ring modulation is funny though because you'd ideally want the sidebands to modulate down by default rather than filter them out, that's why you're using it.

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#52

Post by hobonation » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

Counter: An ultra high bit rate solves the problem and you can stop worrying if it's the weakest link.

You can the focus on other things.

Example: I Bought the best skis possible. Now I know I need to just focus on my skills and not blame the equipment.

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#53

Post by hackingonempty » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

@xiphmont also made an amazing video response to the many responses he received to this article. Using analog equipment he busts a bunch of myths and demonstrates what really happens with digital audio.

https://video.xiph.org/vid2.shtml

or on YT if you can't play it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#54

Post by stego-tech » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

I cannot hear the difference between 16/44.1 (and by extension, 16/48) and High-Res Content generally, be they HDCD, SACD, or just straight-up Masters from Qobuz. This is on multiple sets of equipment, ranging from El Cheapo earbuds all the way to HD800 cans and full-fledged tower speakers being bi-amped.

That’s not why I go for High-Res stuff, though.

It’s all about archival, at least for me. With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater. The point isn’t that I can hear the difference, it’s the fear that I might lose something irrecoverable by sticking with lower-quality files for bulk storage. Once data has been discarded, it cannot be retrieved, and that influences my preference for storage (and is also why my BD/UHD rips are into MKVs, no re-encoding).

Now that being said, I will absolutely hem and haw and ABX different releases to determine if I opt for the 16/44.1 CD rip of an album from the 80s or the new 202X remaster in 24/192 (spoiler: almost always the former), and I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats because of a subjective perception of a wider, clearer sound stage, though this is almost certainly a psychological effect from performing in concert bands and orchestras rather than physical or objective in nature.

Like I tell newcommers: if it sounds better enough to you to warrant the purchase price, then that’s all that really matters. Enjoy the hobby.

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#55

Post by UtopiaPunk » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

speak_on wrote: post #20

At a minimum, anything above 16/44.1 requires far more than just files: monitors, a treated room, listening position, DAC, etc... but most importantly - a trained ear. That last one is the most uncomfortable truth.

If you want to hear the difference between an audio file recorded at 44.1 and 88.2kHZ, then you need slow the audio playback down. Otherwise, a trained ear cannot physically hear the difference.

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#56

Post by Blackthorn » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #44

viccis wrote: post #4

If you try to use empiricism when it comes to certain groups audiophiles, you are going to be sorely reminded that it's basically the equivalent of healing crystals for a different type of person. 24/192 is useful for mixing/mastering, but completely unnecessary for the end product to distribute for listening.

They literally sell actual crystals that you’re supposed to place on top of speakers and amplifiers to make them sound better.

We had a really nice crystal decoration that I happened to put on top of one of my TV speakers and, wouldn't you know it, it had this resonant frequency somewhere around specific human speech frequencies that drove us absolutely bonkers until I figured out the cause and moved it.

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#57

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC

Blackthorn wrote: post #37

jerf wrote: post #28

If you can't hear the squeals of the plants [1] in the studio's reception area, are you really getting the full experience of a piece of music? [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/world/plants-make-sounds-scn

Oh great. And here I thought that fantasy literature where forest elves could hear the screams of the plants they stepped on when they walked was just that -- fantasy.

Triffid music.

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#58

Post by clawlor » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

Blackthorn wrote: post #27

speak_on wrote: post #20

At a minimum, anything above 16/44.1 requires far more than just files: monitors, a treated room, listening position, DAC, etc... but most importantly - a trained ear. That last one is the most uncomfortable truth.

Are you, per chance, a dog posting on the internet? Since 44.1khz sample rate is already past the range of the human ear, regardless of training.

Max representable frequency is half the sampling rate (nyquist-shannon theorem), which is still a bit above normal but IIRC the extra headroom has something to do with eliminating aliasing

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#59

Post by Blackthorn » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

clawlor wrote: post #58

Blackthorn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you, per chance, a dog posting on the internet? Since 44.1khz sample rate is already past the range of the human ear, regardless of training.

Max representable frequency is half the sampling rate (nyquist-shannon theorem), which is still a bit above normal but IIRC the extra headroom has something to do with eliminating aliasing

Indeed. And what is the max frequency that a human can hear?

Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#60

Post by zamadatix » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #35

The article says "I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of the 'same' recording. This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different." It may be simultaneously true that: A) Humans cannot tell the difference between 44.1kHz/16-bit audio and any higher resolution, and B) For a particular song, the best commerc…

While 100% true, I'd phrase B) as:

"The quality of the particular mastering can still make a noticeable difference, regardless of the ability for the digital sampling rates to perfectly represent it perceptually"

Just to be clear that the statement applies to any releases meeting the A) criteria, not just 44.1 kHz @ 16-bit ones.