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

181–190 of 274 posts

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

#181

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

speak_on wrote: post #167
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the central point is that there's no reason to pick on the digital elements in any particular way. Recorded music in 2026 is a pretty good recreation of the original acoustic pressure waves when it is intended to be , but (a) not perfect, even in the pure analog domain and (b) it is frequently not intended to be.

The central point is that AD conversion can and will introduce artifacts. DA process wil intrduce more artifacts. The "imperfect" is a huge range and AD/DA converters play a role in that. We are not talking about "golden cables" bs here, conversion does introduce measurable artifacts in the audio path. The more tracks you record the more artifacts you have. Can everyone hear them? Definitely no. Can they be heard - y…

No, the central point is that the analog signal handling before AD introduces vastly more "artifacts" than the AD or DA does.

In addition, nobody cares about "measurable" artifacts (or rather, they should not). What matters are "audible" artifacts. We have measuring equipment that is vastly more sensitive than human ears (e.g. your recording equipment that can pick up signals far above 22kHz). What's measurable is not particularly interesting - what's audible is.

Artifacts do not sum linearly, because they do not originate from correlated sources (unless you're doing something rather unusual).

Glad you can hear the difference between two converters, but I trust you've tested it in a double blind setting?

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

#182

Post by ryankrage77 »

I decided to test for myself, downloaded Lacinato ABX and tested a 32-bit 352.8Khz flac I had lying around, to the same file downsampled to 16-bit 44.1KHz. I couldn't tell any difference. Then I tried 192k mp3... still no difference. Couldn't reliably differentiate 128 or 64kbps mp3 either. I had to go down to 32k before I could be certain which was which, and even then I still had to listen carefully. Think I need to get my ears checked. I know I can't hear much above 15-16KHz but I didn't think it was this bad.

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

#183

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

geraldmcboing wrote: post #180
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am talking about an industruy you have no knowledge or lived experience with I'm the original/lead developer of Ardour, a cross-platform DAW, and have been working with digital audio for more than 25 years. There are no 32 bit ADCs - your SD MixPre's are giving you (at best) 22 bits packaged as a 32 bit float value. The preamps make absolutely zero difference to the AD conversion (though they might sound real nic…

I do not use the DACs in the MixPre. Its a recording device. The field recordings & studio recordings are transferred as data and used in a 32bit float 192kHz Protools session. So the recorders DAC is completely irrelevant. The sounds are then used as source material, for processing and manipulation at 192k, 96k and 48k. There is no debate to be had. This is how film sound designers work & have worked for years now.…

Running tape at half speed has almost nothing to do with digital resampling, which is what playing digital audio at half speed is generally all about.

My use of DAC was a thinko, I've edited at least post to correct it since in the current context we're always talking about ADC. Apologies for that.

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

#184

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

nok22kon wrote: post #179
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rode NT1-A 5th gen microphone claims 32-bit float output, insisting it will not clip peaks Of course it does! And that's what it does, of course. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the AD process itself, which is chip-limited to 24 bits and likely physics-limited to somewhat less than that. You can't beat the physical limit of a DA circuit by doubling them up at different gains. And .. you don't want to. Go…

you have 22 bits for the typical audio voltage level, which you call 1.0 float but what if you "allow" double that voltage and call it 2.0 float? a strong pressure into the microphone generates a stronger voltage thermal noise limits you on the quiet signals, but not on the powerfull ones so 22 bit for typical -1.0 -> 1.0 range and you can add a few more bits on top of that for stronger audio pressures (voltages) whi…

Sorry, but this not how AD works. If your idea was valid, we'd have new generations of ADCs in our hands.

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

#185

Post by Applejinx »

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…

That would be how you'd go about telling, sure enough. You can't go by 'frequencies' or distortions or anything like that, these analog departures from convincing reality aren't how digital failings manifest.

You try to hear the brickwall by the muffled, enclosed quality and possibly by the weird pre-ring blurriness of the filter making things sound more vague than they have to be, and you hear the truncation not because it is audible 'distortion' as we know it, but because depth collapses and it sounds like it's coming from the speakers and not being a separate space behind/around the speakers. At no point will it be the most glaringly obvious thing but it'll never be 'distortions' as we imagine them, it's more a 'pod people' lack of personality thing.

Like a much subtler version of listening to AI music :)

I'm quite happy with 24/96 as suitable overkill for anything I might want to hear or do. Neil Young went hard on the proposition that 192 was necessary. Sold the Ponoplayer, I had one but it died on me, battery failed eventually. It really did sound awesome beyond just about any other listening device I've ever heard…

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

#186

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

vor_ wrote: post #102
saltcured wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

This is easy to disprove by downsampling from a 24/192 source to 16/44.1 Even if the downsampling is (close to) ideal there are obvious differences.

In fact if you can't hear the difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1 you shouldn't be working in audio. (Doesn't apply to consumers. Does apply to musicians and engineers.)

It's like being colour blind.

And if you don't understand the math behind quantisation, you shouldn't be posting pseudo-scientific videos where you use an oscilloscope and a cheap spectrum analyser - both tools with very limited resolution - to "prove" your point.

16 bit isn't enough for hard, objective reasons. One is that the noise spectrum of quantisation is not simple. Most people assume it's something close to plain white noise, but it really isn't. It's actually a very complex spectrum with some prominent peaks at specific subdivisions of the sample rate. Those frequency peaks are significantly above audibility. 24-bit quantisation shrinks them below audibility.

The other is that most people can hear dither/noise-shaping at 16-bits. That adds a single bit of noise which should - if you're being very literal - be far below the threshold of audibility. But it clearly isn't.

These two facts are related.

The more complex reason is that listening is an active perceptual process. The brain does a huge amount of processing to separate sources and place them in a perceptual field which includes information about perceived object type, distance, and ambience cues. Some of those cues are very quiet, and we don't hear them linearly.

So using sine waves as some kind of perceptual reference for audibility is nonsensical. We hear much more complex signals in an active way, and if there's information missing in the quiet parts - which there is with limited quantisation - then the signal simply isn't accurate.

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

#187

Post by dtgriscom »

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 absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats

High-dynamic-range material benefits from lots of bits.

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

#188

Post by speak_on »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #162
speak_on wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genereally very low for a single track? What about 200 tracks? Badly written synthesis, or badly recorded live instruments, or bounced and re-bounced dozens of times... we are not talking about the quality-defining aspect here. You can produce an excellent mix on KRKs connected directly to a MacBook. This space is not driven by a single precise formula. 48/96 kHz helps some engineers to produce better sounding mixes.…

If you recorded 200 tracks of the same instrument, so that the partials above Nyquist were all broadly the same, then sure, summing the tracks would include summing 200 copies of the aliasing results too. But very little music is like that, and the energy profile above Nyquist will differ dramatically. Consequently, you're not summing a set of identical aliasing results, and in general, the results will still be unde…

Got it. Grammy voters love Collier's mixes. What about Tony Maserati? He can clearly tell the difference between 44.1 and 88.2. If your argument is that these engineers can't hear the difference - you are going to be disappointed. They can. Even Dave Pensado who mixes at 16/44.1, does that because he rejects the idea, he can hear the difference according to him.

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

#189

Post by speak_on »

vor_ wrote: post #168
speak_on wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So far, here isn't sufficient evidence that anyone has such reliably golden ears.

Other than the top engineers in the industry. This is a discussion that always ends up in the "double-blind study" vs actual real engineers working in the industry.

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

#190

Post by Cider9986 »

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…

The thing I didn't understand with higher quality music files is that it's not like the entire song is different and better when you go from 64 to 128 kbps opus, it's just these super minor details that get changed. It was enlightening doing an abx test, but I still use flacs because it's nice not worrying about the quality mattering.
Post reply on HN