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

24/192 music downloads are silly

xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 443 posts

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#31

Post by CUViper »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #12

While the 30/33 kHz inter modulation test is interesting, how would the 30/33 kHz tones get there in the first place? Aren't there low pass filters and shielding on most studio equipment to attenuate EMI? Not to mention, the inter modulation products are 60 dB below the 30/33 kHz tones, I'm sure you wouldn't be able to hear them...

I think the point is that some people assert that they want the ultrasonics, as if they could tell the difference, so you wouldn't filter it. Then the presence of those ultrasonic tones creates the modulation in a range that you can hear. Likewise, the 60dB difference doesn't matter because you can't hear the signal at all, so you're going to notice the noise.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#32

Post by IvyMike »

The industry wants to be able to sell you something "better" and 24/192 is clearly bigger and therefore better than 16/48.

This is the same reason I'm convinced we're going to get 8k phone displays someday.

If the recording industry wants to sell me a "platinum" version of recordings, what I'd really like to have is different mastering of an album: at least one for noisy environments like the car, and one for higher-quality environments like my home theater. If you're familiar with "The Loudness Wars", this is a reaction to that. NiN tried to do this with their "audiophile" mix of Hesitation Marks (although a lot of people think they did not succeed, http://www.metal-fi.com/terrible-lie/ )

On the other hand, I don't need to buy any new equipment to support that, so the equipment guys aren't going to be happy. I don't know if there's any silver bullet for them--if there is a hypothetical advancement that would cause me to upgrade my system, I can't envision it.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#33

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

sp332 wrote: post #6
z3ugma wrote: post #4

I'm not familiar enough with the author's work to know if his credentials merit it, but to me his tone is unbelievably snobbish and offputting.

He founded xiph.org, created the Ogg container, and helped write Vorbis and Daala. His creds are pretty much the best. Edit: For a less-snobbish presentation, try watching his Digital Show & Tell video https://www.xiph.org/video/

I wouldn't say being a data compression geek makes anyone a master of DSP or of psychoacoustics.

The basic issue with 16-bit is that low level details like reverb tails and hall ambiences or very quiet musical passages get the equivalent of 14-bit (f) 12-bit (mf) to 8-bit (ppp) sampling.

This sounds noticeably grainy and digital.

It's not about total dynamic range or sine waves, it's about the fact that human ears can do really neat source separation tricks. We can hear quiet elements in a mix without too much difficulty.

If those elements are sampled at less than 16 bits - which they will be, if the maximum resolution is only 16-bits - we can hear that too.

So 24-bits gives you effortlessly smooth sound for quiet passages and quiet details. 16-bits doesn't. (Dither helps a lot, but it only takes you so far.)

Why are there still people who pretend this isn't relevant? It's not a difficult point to understand, and it shouldn't be controversial.

Edit - the technical misunderstanding is a lack of appreciation of the different properties of the absolute theoretical noise floor of a converter, and the fact that quantisation noise isn't like analog noise. It's actually more of a hyper-objectionable and nasty sort-of-nonharmonic distortion.

So as the bit resolution goes down, the sound doesn't just get buried in noise it also gets more and more obviously distorted.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#34

Post by shmerl »

RyJones wrote: post #19
tunesmith wrote: post #3

The summary here is to just rip everything losslessly and then to go ahead and use 44.1/16 since it's actually better in some ways and not worse in others.

Indeed. I rip everything losslessly and batch re-encode when I switch music players (man, I miss my Zunes)

+1. I store originals (rips and etc.) in FLAC and then encode in Opus (around 140 Kbps) to actually listen to. 140 is an approximation of transparency level, it can be lower according to these tests: http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#35

Post by chubot »

errantspark wrote: post #18

I once spent ~2 hours explaining all of this (well maybe not all of it) to a friend of mine who was studying sound design at the time. He didn't believe me. I even transcoded some 24/192 FLAC Pink Floyd I had lying around and made him do a double blind test to show him that he'd prefer the slightly louder song every time, even if the louder song was 192kbps vs the FLAC. He did. He still doesn't believe me. He still t…

It is baffling to me that people even talk about 24/192. There are such vast differences in audio quality related to speakers, loudness, amplifier, mastering, and EQ, before you even get to the source format.

For some reason people seem to latch on to the format thing, before being able to make judgements about the more important factors.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#36

Post by pierrec »

errantspark wrote: post #18

I once spent ~2 hours explaining all of this (well maybe not all of it) to a friend of mine who was studying sound design at the time. He didn't believe me. I even transcoded some 24/192 FLAC Pink Floyd I had lying around and made him do a double blind test to show him that he'd prefer the slightly louder song every time, even if the louder song was 192kbps vs the FLAC. He did. He still doesn't believe me. He still t…

Wait until he gets some of'em Shakti Stones! [1]

One reviewer [2] notes: "The effect of the first few Shakti products was not as apparent as when the effect became compounded. Each built on the others' ability to eliminate EMI in the component on or under which it was placed. Music became more relaxed, with greater clarity. Space and ambience increased. The soundfield became considerably more open and defined. At a certain point, the effect became quite startling as another Stone or On-Line was added. Shazaam!"

[1]: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

[2]: http://www.audaud.com/audaud/DEC01/EQUIP/equip3DEC01.html

PS: Sorry for bringing these up. They're quite the recurring joke in audiophile discussion.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#37

Post by bsder »

IvyMike wrote: post #32

The industry wants to be able to sell you something "better" and 24/192 is clearly bigger and therefore better than 16/48. This is the same reason I'm convinced we're going to get 8k phone displays someday. If the recording industry wants to sell me a "platinum" version of recordings, what I'd really like to have is different mastering of an album: at least one for noisy environments like the car, and one for higher-…

Until phones are 600dpi like paper, I'm fine with display resolution continuing to increase, thanks.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#38

Post by reportingsjr »

jimon wrote: post #21

Ok, I have a 1k+$ of sound equipment, I listen to lossless, and my equipment is 24/192 DAC in hardware (so even if I pass 16/44.1, it will get up-converted). Now give me 24/192 music and don't tell me "you don't need it", because I need it. But for my mobile phone and 29$ earpods, 96 kbps 16/44.1 mp3 from soundcloud is good enough.

Uhhh, 16/44.1 can't be "upconverted" to 24/192. Once you lose that information is gone it is gone forever.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#39

Post by elwell »

errantspark wrote: post #18

I once spent ~2 hours explaining all of this (well maybe not all of it) to a friend of mine who was studying sound design at the time. He didn't believe me. I even transcoded some 24/192 FLAC Pink Floyd I had lying around and made him do a double blind test to show him that he'd prefer the slightly louder song every time, even if the louder song was 192kbps vs the FLAC. He did. He still doesn't believe me. He still t…

If it is no better, then the person who thinks it is better benefits from it.

If it is better, then the person who thinks it is better benefits from it.

If it is no better, then the person who thinks it is no better doesn't benefit from it.

If it is better, then the person who thinks it is no better doesn't benefit from it.

If the objective is subjective benefit, then placebo is a benefit; assuming your bank account is large enough and you don't care to give your money to someone who really needs it.

Edit: An answer to this is the Carl Sagan quote at the end of the article:

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Of course, it isn't really possible to not 'persist in delusion'. One can try, but he won't know if by trying he is perpetuating a grander delusion.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#40

Post by mmastrac »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #33
sp332 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He founded xiph.org, created the Ogg container, and helped write Vorbis and Daala. His creds are pretty much the best. Edit: For a less-snobbish presentation, try watching his Digital Show & Tell video https://www.xiph.org/video/

I wouldn't say being a data compression geek makes anyone a master of DSP or of psychoacoustics. The basic issue with 16-bit is that low level details like reverb tails and hall ambiences or very quiet musical passages get the equivalent of 14-bit (f) 12-bit (mf) to 8-bit (ppp) sampling. This sounds noticeably grainy and digital. It's not about total dynamic range or sine waves, it's about the fact that human ears ca…

If this is so relevant and obvious, why not put up two files: one 192/24 and one 48/16 and allow people to run their own double-blind test as he notes in the article? If you could produce a repeatable test where some number of people can tell that one is better, that would be a powerful argument.

He's argued that people have done this test over and over, and nobody can ever tell the difference.

Post reply on HN