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

191–200 of 274 posts

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

#191

Post by DiabloD3 »

ryankrage77 wrote: post #182

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 t…

Yeaaaaaaaaaahhhh.... you might be a tiny bit deaf.

OTOH, we know nothing of your audio equipment nor how its setup.

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

#192

Post by saltcured »

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…

> 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.

In this case, it was my brother's own 24/192 recording, down-mixed by him to CD format with the intent that it be transparent. I believe he said his software was supposed to be dithering, but this was ~25 years ago and I can't really confirm the details anymore.

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

#193

Post by Cider9986 »

nullc wrote: post #156
Cider9986 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC. A reasonable definition of transparency for high bitrate compressed audio is "Can the worst files be distinguished by a listener trained in what artifacts sound like". Maybe also add in having to use a high discrimination listening setup, including not running excessively loud (increases masking). If that's not the test you're doing, it's unsurprising. At…

I did the ABX test extension in foobar2000 with Octopus's Garden. It was on nice headphones.

You're right it's just minor details.

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

#194

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

speak_on wrote: post #188
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can find no evidence that Maserati (or 99% of any other mix or mastering engineers) has ever tested his "appreciation" of the "crunch" at 44.1 in a double blind environment.

It is always amazing how much that is claimed about what people can hear fails to show up when tested in this, the only acceptable scientific way.

Perhaps Maserati has done this, and could still tell the difference. In which case, he should carry on! But he should carry on anyway! People should do what brings them joy, and if he likes working at 44.1kHz or whatever, he should absolutely do that.

What people should not do is lecture about stuff that isn't true and/or isn't demonstrable in proper test settings, and most (not all, but most) of the SR stuff fits into one or other or both of those categories.

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

#195

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Applejinx wrote: post #185
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…

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 bec…

24 > 16 is not debatable. Sample rates are more complex because then higher the clock rate the more you get distortions from jitter and the design of the DAC/ADC. Most converters introduce different artefacts at different sample rates, especially at the prosumer end, so you're not comparing like for like.

The last couple of generations of converters have gotten a lot better, so 192kHz today is likely to sound cleaner and smoother than it did ten years ago, where there was a good chance the clock was quite jittery.

Personally I don't think it's worth the extra bandwidth for playback, but I can understand why some people might want it.

Generally all of these "debates" come down to people who think math > circuitry. All real designs are imperfect trade-offs. They all have issues, and arguing as if converters are perfect when they never are, and the imperfections can be benched objectively, is... not very scientific.

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

#196

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

geraldmcboing wrote: post #163
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever actually checked the number of actual bits your ADC can use? Most 24 bit converters struggle to get to 18 bits. Nobody uses 32 bit float for recording (to do so is just to capture at least 10 bits of noise, most of that being brownian); its strictly a format for mixing and processing. You don't get any more resolution from 32 bit floating point than you do from 24 bit integer formats, but the result of…

"Nobody uses 32 bit float for recording" - you are just displaying total ignorance here.

My comment should have been more emphatic that: nobody uses AD converters that generate 32 bit floating point values natively when recording, or anywhere close to the resolution that format implies.

I am extremely aware that as a data format in DAWs and other recorders, 32 bit floating point is completely common.

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

#197

Post by speak_on »

vor_ wrote: post #157
speak_on wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are looking for studies, this one comes to mind: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289039184_The_audib... A quick search returned this PDF with a nice diagram of what aliasing looks like: https://download.tek.com/document/76W_30631_0_HR_Letter.pdf To draw a design parallel: pixel-perfect design isn't something we are born with, noticing tiny details is a developed skill. And yes, you are on point: overs…

Oh, dear, that AES 2014 paper from Meridian (which was trying to push its controversial proprietary MQA audiophile system the same year) was widely criticized on audio forums when it came out, ranging from the rectangular dithering method to the use of a hard metal tweeter that could cause IM. Do you have more convincing sources?

I don't. Do you? I am not a researcher. Saying that, do you have a double-blind study handy on MP3 256 vs 320 actual audible differences? If not, can you yourself hear the difference? If you can - it might be an illusion.

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

#198

Post by danadam »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #129
dist-epoch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper audio resampling should not be identifiable. Of course, the OS mixer probably doesn't do proper (CPU expensive) resampling. But a quality audio player should account for this and do it's own.

If you're not on a US-based IP, you should check out https://src.infinitewave.ca/ It is an incredible resource to see the quality of the resampling algorithms used by the actual production software likely used in any digital audio workflow. You will see that while the best are indeed almost 100% transparent, many are not.

> If you're not on a US-based IP, you should check out https://src.infinitewave.ca/

There is also https://src.hydrogenaudio.org/ (with no IP based restrictions, AFAIK).

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

#199

Post by geraldmcboing »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #183
geraldmcboing wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wrong again. As a sound designer I can choose to import a 192kHz file into a 48kHz PT session in two ways, one as resampled audio which means pitch & duration stay the same, OR I can choose to import it without SR conversion, in which case the audio plays at quarter speed & pitch is 2 octaves lower. We use both techniques ALL the time, every day. It's a common technique every sound designer uses.

You are arguing about techniques you have no experience with.

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

#200

Post by nok22kon »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #184
nok22kon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In a 32-bit float recorder, you have two ADCs working in tandem to create a single audio file. One “low gain” ADC is optimized for high-level audio, and the other “high gain” ADC is optimized for low-level audio. If the high gain ADC clips due to loud sounds, the low gain ADC does not. And if sounds are too quiet for the low gain ADC to capture clearly above its noise floor, the high gain ADC still has plenty of headroom above its noise floor. Said another way, the low-level ADC handles the quieter sections, and the high-level ADC handles loud sections.

https://tascam.jp/int/feature/32-bit_float

Post reply on HN