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

241–250 of 274 posts

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

#241

Post by dialogbox »

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…

> 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.

I used to think the same. But I realized that downsampling hi-res music to 16/44.1 isn't a transparent conversion. So now I prefer the one downsampled to 16/44.1 by an expert in production env. I almost always download 16/44.1 flac files because of this.

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

#242

Post by pringk02 »

hackingonempty wrote: post #53

@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

One of the best educational videos on any topic ever imo. I can't help but watch it again each time. So incredibly well paced and accessible

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

#244

Post by porridgeraisin »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #206
geraldmcboing wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abou…

I wrote a DAW that does precisely what you describe. I've been doing it for 25 years.

cperciva moment right here

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

#245

Post by bzzzt »

bob1029 wrote: post #177
empiricus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even for PC, I recommend some cheap studio monitors.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964752-REG/yamaha_hs8...

Those things have huge drivers and are probably too big for a lot of rooms. Unless you (and your neighbors) absolutely want to have that thumping sound and you go out of your way to kill unwanted bass reflection you're probably better off with the HS5 or something similar.

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

#246

Post by rasz »

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

That cheap clock source is good enough for 16 GHz PCIE signaling, but Im sure you will be able to hear the jitter!

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

#247

Post by bzzzt »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #195
Applejinx wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

There is one purely objective benchmark: a true blind test. You can believe if something is different or not, but if nobody's capably of hearing the difference, does it matter?

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

#248

Post by leothetechguy »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #186
vor_ wrote: post #102

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. 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…

I agree with most of your points, but saying you shouldn't work in audio if you can't tell the difference between 192khz and 44.1khz is a bit elitist imo. And saying you're color blind if you can't tell the difference is like saying you're blind if you don't have 20/20 vision and shouldn't draw. You can always use meters to check for aliasing artifacts.

It's not like all of your samples and virtual instruments are 192khz or even 96k. Many are 48khz or even 44.1k.

I think there are many cases where people never need to go above 44.1khz unless you maybe have saturation on the master bus. I agree that good dithering is important though and think that there hasn't been enough research on that so far.

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

#249

Post by bob1029 »

bzzzt wrote: post #245
bob1029 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964752-REG/yamaha_hs8...

Those things have huge drivers and are probably too big for a lot of rooms. Unless you (and your neighbors) absolutely want to have that thumping sound and you go out of your way to kill unwanted bass reflection you're probably better off with the HS5 or something similar.

8" is not a huge driver. The point with these is to avoid the need for a separate subwoofer for most program material.

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

#250

Post by Applejinx »

bzzzt wrote: post #247
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. There is one purely objective benchmark: a true blind test. You can believe if something is different or not, but if nobody's capably…

You're missing a few words. To be correct you would have to have said 'if nobody's capable of hearing the difference every single time beyond a statistical doubt, does it matter?'

You can say that and be correct, while also sounding a little more silly than perhaps you'd like.

edit: rather than go even harder, I'm instead going to suggest it's perfectly fine to care about things you don't hear every single time, but still like or dislike :)

My pet example is sand in the lettuce for a salad. If you dislike that particular cronch against your teeth while eating salad, it has a spectacular ability to ruin your enjoyment of your salad, even though you don't perceive it every single time. Digital distortions are like that for some of us, things like wow and flutter and vinyl surface noise are like that for others. People vary. (which is also why not to generalize about what 'people can hear')

Post reply on HN