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

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

people.xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 274 posts

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

#91

Post by stego-tech »

Cider9986 wrote: post #81
stego-tech wrote: post #54

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…

I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC.

And that's fine! I've got a flatmate who loves 320kpbs MP3s on studio monitors, I've got musician friends who swear by CD-audio and Sennheiser HD200s, and others who love how vinyl uniquely degrades over time on big speakers.

The takeaway from these sorts of posts, at least in my opinion, should be two-fold:

* Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts

* Liberate you from the "tech grind" and allow you to enjoy what you like, how you like it.

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

#92

Post by rz2k »

PcChip wrote: post #87
rz2k wrote: post #79

My good enough amplifier and DAC combo claims up to 24bit/192kHz, I use a cheap optical interface from my computer that claims up to 32bit/192kHz, and the streaming service I use serves most albums at 24bit/44.1kHz. It would have cost the same for the entire stack to be 16bit/44.1kHz at every step, but with excessive resolution I can control the volume anywhere. The bits right before the analog conversion at the end…

you might want to see if your DAC re-clocks incoming optical, if not then it's relying on the cheap clock generator from your computer

Some people have claimed to hear an improvement with an external clock on a Wiim Ultra, but I do not think it is possible to re-clock the WiiM Amp Ultra with an outboard clock.

When I play from the computer, I'm not sure whether it is using the clock on my Mac, the clock on the optical interface, or the WiiM's clock. However, I do not notice any difference in fidelity when I use the Qobuz software player on my Mac or use Qobuz Connect to allow the player to directly stream from the source, so either it isn't a difference that I can hear, or the WiiM's internal clock is used for both sources.

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

#93

Post by labcomputer »

move-on-by wrote: post #63
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.

I don’t have great hearing, so I’m not sure I can really weigh in here (thanks punk concerts in my teens). I remember similar arguments around screens and 60Hz vs ‘the human eye’. I think a lot of people, myself included, can easily perceive the difference between 60Hz and something higher- given the right conditions. I would not be so quick to disregard claims of more sensitive hearing.

I would. It’s really simple.

The human threshold-of-hearing curve intersects the threshold-of-pain curve at about 20 kHz.

Above that frequency (or thereabouts) the sound has to be so loud that it will literally instantly damage your hearing before you can hear it.

This has been replicated across many studies for more than 100 years.

Flicker threshold is completely different. You can’t damage your vision by increasing the FPS, and it has always been commercially desirable to use a lower frequency because that is cheaper.

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

#94

Post by speak_on »

scns wrote: post #41
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.

A treated room would be the most impactful, DACs the least.

The most impactful for noticing the difference? Again, I would argue it's the trained ear. If you have plenty of mixing experience then all these details add up, and a treated room becomes the most critical - agree with that.

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

#95

Post by speak_on »

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #55
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.

44.1 is "enough" only in theory. This assumes a physically impossible steep filter. Realistically, frequencies around 20 kHz will create audible artifacts (aliasing). So yes, a trained ear can tell the diffrenece between 44.1 and even 48 kHz. Like many other commenters in this thread, you are mixing up math theory with physical limitations of AD/DA converters. Oversampling is a common way to address this limitation, but strictly speaking 44.1 kHz is not as obviously "enough" as it seems.

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

#96

Post by OkayPhysicist »

Blackthorn wrote: post #68
Rotundo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on age of the listener, on average, 30 to 50 year olds hear a maximum frequency of 14 to 16 kHz.

Right. Which are quite below 1/2 of 44.1k!

Sure, but those are averages. I'm 30-ish, and my hearing doesn't cut out until somewhere in the 21kHz range. When I was younger, it was even higher. One of my roommates in college had one of those anti-rodent high-frequency noise generators, we almost came to blows over it.

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

#97

Post by speak_on »

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.

As I responded below, you are confusing math with physical reality. A true 44.1 kHz converter can't realistically capture frequencies ~18-20 kHz due to the limitations of filters used in the process. A perfect lowpass brick-wall filter just does not exist - they all introduce artifacts, which a trained ear can identify. You don't need to be a dog to hear the difference, just someone who does not assume that Nyquist theorem can be magically applied in the real world (and, ideally, someone who utilizes high quality converters with oversampling).

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

#98

Post by speak_on »

move-on-by wrote: post #63
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.

I don’t have great hearing, so I’m not sure I can really weigh in here (thanks punk concerts in my teens). I remember similar arguments around screens and 60Hz vs ‘the human eye’. I think a lot of people, myself included, can easily perceive the difference between 60Hz and something higher- given the right conditions. I would not be so quick to disregard claims of more sensitive hearing.

(I commented on this topic above/below in more detail.) Even with not-so-great hearing you would still be able to identify the difference (ie artifacts are pushed down, not up). Look up articles on the practical limitations of AD/DA converters and why the seemingly counter-intuitive claim that the difference between 44.1 kHz and above is noticeable, is actually a fully industry-accepted practical reality: aliasing, AD/DA lowpass filters, etc.

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

#99

Post by speak_on »

Blackthorn wrote: post #59
clawlor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The artifacts produced by pure 44.1 kHz convertion are aliased back down to lower frequencies. It's not about a theoretical human ear, it's about the actual physics of AD/DA conversion.
Post reply on HN