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)

#101

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:02 PM UTC

justsomehnguy wrote: post #76

lmc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My favourite: "audiophile-grade" audio players which allocate a single contignuous buffer of RAM into which they load/decode the whole .WAV/.FLAC file, because supposedly the CPU "jumping" between "fragmented memory" causes audible "jitter". Thanks for the laugh... this is absolutely bonkers. In case anyone is wondering, before sound hits our ears it has to go through a digital to analog conversion, which takes pla…

Am486DX/100 was enough to decode and listen an MP3 at 22KHz (and maybe mono?) and was more than enough to listen for 44/16/2 PCM. It's 31 y.o. today.

I remember playing 44khz 16-bit stereo MP3s encoded at 128 kbit/sec on a 133 Mhz 486.

It gobbled like 90% of the CPU and I had to make sure I gave it a pretty large buffer so it didn't stutter when an app claimed CPU for more than a second, but it worked.

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

#102

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:06 PM UTC

saltcured wrote: post #85

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…

Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart. I a…

> Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart.

As referenced in the article, a common explanation for those audible differences is that the high-resolution version of the album is sourced from a different master.

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

#103

Post by manoDev » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:13 PM UTC

They make sense for so called audiophiles who don’t understand Nyqist frequency theory.

It’s like photographers who are confused about the difference between raw and bitmap (jpeg), videographers confused about the difference between linear raw vs log vs gamma encoded, etc.

Just because a data format with higher bit depth/sampling frequency/whatever exists for editing purposes, doesn’t mean it’s “better” or makes sense as a consumption format for a finished work.

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

#104

Post by speak_on » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:16 PM UTC

labcomputer wrote: post #93

move-on-by wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Would you agree that a trained human could identify artifacts produced by an imperect conversion process? If you lean "yes", then that's your answer: AD/DA is not a Rust function perfectly implementing the Nyquist theorem, it's a collection of physical components many of which introduce artifacts into the audio path. This thread is not about the theory of human hearing, the electronic components are literally imperfect.

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

#105

Post by codedokode » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:21 PM UTC

justsomehnguy wrote: post #74

billyjobob wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell when my CPU usage spikes because it causes a hum through my speakers, so this does not seem that far-fetched.

It's just means you have a shitty audio tract with not enough shielding. Move to SPDIF/TOSLINK.

I have an external audio card, if I put it on a laptop I can hear the modem-like sounds. I wonder why it is so sensitive, should not DAC produce strong signal that cannot be easily affected by radio waves?

Also my headphones are extremely sensitive. I can touch the ring and sleeve of a jack with a finger, and touch a metal bed frame with a tip and I hear quiet clicks as I move the tip along the metal. Sometimes I do not even need to touch the jack with a finger. It doesn't work with small objects like a knife though.

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

#106

Post by ubercow13 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:21 PM UTC

munchler wrote: post #23

Tsarp wrote: post #8

This really is driving a muscle/super car, or drinking expensive wine. At the end none of specs or tests matter. It is a form of art. If it makes the listener feel better (even if its just psychological) then its probably worth it.

To expand on this a bit, I appreciate some audio overkill because, if I do hear sizzle or distortion, it eliminates one possible reason and helps me figure out what’s actually happening. It’s like having gigabit internet to my house: I don’t actually need it, but when a website is slow, I know the problem isn’t in my internet connection.

Would 192khz audio result in less sizzle and distortion? Or more audible band IMD from the sound >22khz

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

#107

Post by dspillett » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:23 PM UTC

stego-tech wrote: post #91

Cider9986 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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

Also understand that while there is an upper limit, we are all different within that. I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC, at least for some content, but not 256Kbps, maybe not 192. For some content (spoken word etc.), 64Kbps, sometimes less, is perfectly acceptable (to me). There was a time I could hear the difference between some encoders, but that was decades ago and anything in active use is pretty damn good (and my ears are not what they used to be) unless you really crank the bitrate down or tweak other options daftly.

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

#108

Post by pimeys » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:25 PM UTC

z_open wrote: post #33

As they say, most people listen to their music with equipment. Audiophiles listen to their equipment with music.

I might be something from the middle. Yes, I did spend a hefty 5000 euros to my headphone setup. And yes it sounds absolutely magical and every day I'm happy listening to music with it.

But I also have a large multi-terabyte music collection, I follow new music, go to concerts, go to parties, talk about music with my friends in signal group chats.

It's a hobby, and when you get a bit older and start having some savings, if you love music treating yourself with a better system is not that crazy.

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

#109

Post by geraldmcboing » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:26 PM UTC

The OP is a bit off with their description of why pro audio engineers work in higher bit rates and sample rates. We use 24bit to preserve low level sounds eg reverb, breaths etc and use 32bit float when recording as the headroom is so massive clipping is not an issue (other than of course still neeing to avoid overloading microphones with max SPL - cleanly recorded distorted sound is still a fail). Unclipping 32bit float feels like voodoo - I did a test, recording fireworks & unclipping the 32bit float recordings.

I use microphones that can 'hear' up to 100kHz (Sanken CUX100K) and for film sound design playing 192kHz audio at half and quarter speed the results are very significant, and reveal there IS 'content' above human hearing. Irrelevant for general listening but very important for sound design.

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

#110

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 10:27 PM UTC

speak_on wrote: post #97

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.

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 t…

Is there evidence that a trained ear can reliably perceive these artifacts in a blind test of converters? I'd be interested in reading those links since converters typically oversample into the mHz range. At 11.29 mHz (256x 44.1 mHz), Nyquist will be at 5.64 mHz. Even the cheapest consumer converters are performing this type of oversampling.