Live data from Hacker News

24/192 music downloads are silly

xiph.org

141–150 of 443 posts

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#141
post #54
post #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 frequen…

There's also the fact that you can FEEL some sounds that you can't hear. Chris Randall of Sister Machine Gun (at least used to?) use a low-frequency generator at live shows to produce a sound that the audience could feel but not hear in order to make the music more intense. I suspect that you'd gain some of that effect with a larger bit size. ...or I could be completely wrong. Whatever.

Well, first of all there is no problem with encoding low frequencies here (we do all the time! like the fact that the notes are not all played at the same time...).

What you feel is parts of your body resonating (because the low frequency sound is exciting modes of your body). This is unlikely to happen at high frequencies, partially because it would necessarily be much smaller parts of your body (see [0] for a diagram of typical body resonance frequencies) which we probably don't feel and because attenuation of sound greatly increases at higher frequencies (for example, see [0] for air), making it likely impractical to excite any such modes. My guess is that you might cause some tissue damage if you had significant ultrasonic excitation in your body (see [2] for something that may or may not be true...).

[0] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37543/does-the-hu... [1] http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_4/2_4_1.html [2] http://www.tovatech.com/blog/4376/ultrasonic-cleaner/ultraso...

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#142
post #137

24/192 playback isn't entirely silly. It's probably true that you can't hear a difference between a perfectly reconstructed 16/44.1k audio and perfectly reconstructed 24/192k audio. But the quality of your DAC certainly does matter, as well as the analog hardware that's after it. If a device has a 24/192k DAC, it means the manufacturer didn't just use the cheapest DAC they could find, and it's more likely to be high-…

Did you read the article? "The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.... Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. ...any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum…

Does the same also go for high end audio equipment that a typical audiophile might have?

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#143
post #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 frequen…

192kHz may not be as silly as you think: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10848570

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#144
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was referring to the specific example he gave in which the higher-frequency had an amplitude of 2^6 and the lower frequency sinusoid had an amplitude of 2^10

And that is not how digital sampling works - you don't allocate bits to different frequencies.

On the other hand, with perceptual audio coding (e.g. mp3, m4a, ogg) you do.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#145
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah. Sorry. I didn't do the math.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#146
post #55

No one can see X-rays (or infrared, or ultraviolet, or microwaves). It doesn't matter how much a person believes he can. Retinas simply don't have the sensory hardware. The author seems to have stumbled into a poor example, as a recent study shows that humans can indeed see infrared light using an unexpected process. Should we read anything into the audio case from this? Probably not, but it's a sign that even those…

Openmindedness isn't the same thing as being open to accepting a mistaken belief. If no one can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, then 24-bit simply doesn't matter. The only way to know is with a controlled experiment that checks whether the people can detect no better than chance whether music is 24-bit.

> being open to accepting a mistaken belief.

This is odd. Do you think "mistaken beliefs" are clearly labeled so you can reject them without examination or experimentation?

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#147
post #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 frequen…

There is another reason 24-bit music is desirable: it's good for remix culture (silly IP laws notwithstanding).

If I pay for music, I want to truly own it, including the possibility of someday making a mashup, a music video, a hip-hop beat, et cetera. A 24-bit source gives casual creatives the same quality material as the original masters, for a relatively paltry 1.5x increase in file size.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#148
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Openmindedness isn't the same thing as being open to accepting a mistaken belief. Perhaps not, but I think it's very close. I'm not advocating for noncritical acceptance of anything, but making the point that any jump from "X is a physical law" to "Y is impossible" depends critically on the assumption that the only way to achieve Y is through X, and that there is no possibility of a back door that entirely sidesteps…

> I'd probably make the bet that there exist certain 24-bit sound files that certain listeners can discern from the same sound file that has been downsampled to 16-bit. I would take you up on that bet. This has been tried before, and no difference was found, even when dithering wasn't used! The noise floor on 16 bit audio is around -96dB. There are very few HiFi systems that can manage that. Even in the highly unlike…

I probably should have written 16/44.1 vs 24/192, since I was thinking mostly of the waveform 'beat' interactions as shown in the linked video. Do you feel those are also indistinguishable? I can't afford an actual bet on it, but I'm interested enough to explore a bit and see what I can find.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#149
post #55

No one can see X-rays (or infrared, or ultraviolet, or microwaves). It doesn't matter how much a person believes he can. Retinas simply don't have the sensory hardware. The author seems to have stumbled into a poor example, as a recent study shows that humans can indeed see infrared light using an unexpected process. Should we read anything into the audio case from this? Probably not, but it's a sign that even those…

From what I can make of it, it doesn't sounds like that's really the same thing as seeing the infrared part of the spectrum, at least not the way people would normally mean it. It sounds like an effect that makes photons from infrared light simulate green light.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Openmindedness isn't the same thing as being open to accepting a mistaken belief. If no one can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, then 24-bit simply doesn't matter. The only way to know is with a controlled experiment that checks whether the people can detect no better than chance whether music is 24-bit.

> being open to accepting a mistaken belief. This is odd. Do you think "mistaken beliefs" are clearly labeled so you can reject them without examination or experimentation?

A belief that relies on known falsehoods is plainly mistaken.
Post reply on HN