Live data from Hacker News

24/192 music downloads are silly

xiph.org

41–50 of 443 posts

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#41
I agree with the silliness of 192kHz, but not 24-bits. Here is why:

In typical PCM recordings, like CDs, mid-range frequencies (e.g. 1kHz to 4kHz) are recorded with lower amplitudes because our ears are more sensitive to them.

Sampling theory is correct and 16-bits can reproduce any waveform with ~100dB of range, however, in a complex waveform consisting of low, mid and high frequencies, the mid- and hi-range frequencies quite simply get shortchanged.

Imagine a recording of a bass sinusoid and a mid-range sinusoid of equal volume. It might use e.g. 10 bits to store the bass and only 6 to store the high frequencies. (2^10sin(200wt)+2^6sin(4000wt)). That means the resolution of the high frequencies is less than the lower frequencies. When the volume of those frequencies changes dynamically, the high frequencies' amplitudes are more quantized. That is quite simply why 16-bits are not enough.

This is similar to the problem with storing waveforms unprecompensated on vinyl. The precompensation makes up for the non-uniformity of the medium. It could be done with 16-bit digital as well. Or alternatively, larger sample sizes like 24 can be used.

I haven't A/B tested this. The A/B test in the article compares CD with SACD. SACD isn't PCM, so its artifacts are going to be totally different from 24-bit PCM.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#42
post #22

What's so funny is to see yet another occurrence of basically "because Nyquist" yet fails to address that Nyquist only holds true over infinite time. Over a window of any finite length perfect reproduction is NOT guaranteed. This paper, http://www.academia.edu/8412078/Is_The_Nyquist_Rate_Enough , for one, refutes this. More reading material: http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf

Sure, but they're including a healthy margin by not caring about frequencies above 20KHz.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#44
post #37
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.

Let's do the math. If I didn't screw it up (and I probably did), an 8k iphone 6 would be around 1600 dpi.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#45

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…

>He still thinks he can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 to this day. He works as a sound engineer now.

It's really not fair to compare FLAC vs MP3 to "hi-rez" FLAC vs regular FLAC

There's legitimately some instruments that do not compress well. The harpsichord is a particular example that you should be able to hear the difference on on any sort of decent equipment.

Bur hi-rez vs regular flac is something that I don't think can be really detected by humans. I've gone through and done the Philips golden ears challenge to completion, and have very high end equipment, blind ABX FLAC vs MP3 on a lot of songs I am familiar with, but have never once been able to successfully ABX between a 24/192 flac and a regular one.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#46
post #37
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.

4k would exceed that significantly on a 6" display. Thus why parent compares an 8k phone to the 24/192 discussion - the benefits are nothing more than being able to advertise a larger number.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#47
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…

I'm not sure what you mean about quieter sounds having less resolution. The point of having a 16-bit representation of a sample is that you pick the single point on the 65,536-point (logarithmic) line that is closest to the sound pressure level at that time. It's not like the points "below" your sound add up or anything. A loud sound gets a high number, and a quiet sound gets a low number. Both cases have the same precision.

In fact, because the points are logarithmically spaced, the points in the quiet part of the spectrum are closer together and have better resolution than loud sounds.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#48
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…

What are your credentials? Not trying to be snobby, just for comparison's sake.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#49
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.

There is a good section in here describing why not only do you not need it, if you use it (as a terminal/listening format) you are probably just making things worse.

A system designed end to end to play 24/192 (not the DAC, it's the amps, speakers etc. you have to worry about) could do this reasonably, but you aren't putting that together for $1k. Or probably $10k. Mainly because there is no point, if the mix down is done right you can't physically hear the differences anyway.

It's a good format for mixing, and a hopeless one for listening.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#50

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…

> Some people buy $500 wooden knobs to make their volume pots sound better. (or was that a hoax? i can't tell anymore) Some people buy small pyramids to elevate their cables off the floor, some people buy mats to put onto your CDs before putting the CD in a player ( http://dagogo.com/millenniums-m-cd-mat-carbon-cd-damper-revi... ), some people buy $1000+/meter digital interconnect cables ( http://www.theabsolutesound…

$350/m HDMI cables... so, Monster?
Post reply on HN