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

111–120 of 443 posts

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#111

Post by inetsee »

I remember when CDs first came out and Neil Young was very critical of their sound, and I believe he was entirely justified in his criticism. When they first came out CDs were Record Company's poor stepchildren, and they were treated very poorly. I believe the engineers mastering CDs were given tapes that were several generations away from the original master tapes, and I suspect they may have even been already equalized for vinyl. No wonder audiophiles preferred the sound of vinyl over the sound of early CDs.

Nowadays CDs are made from digital recordings to digital masters to digital discs (DDD). I love Neil Young's music, but his grasp of the details of digital audio recording and reproduction is not particularly strong.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#112

Post by ansible »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #60
diydsp wrote: 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…

The correct way to attack this isn't by attacking the theory. It's to gather a lot of people and ask them to press a button indicating whether the audio they hear is 16-bit or 24-bit. If the results are no better than chance, then 24-bit doesn't matter, regardless of how sound the underlying argument is. EDIT: The experiment would also be extremely difficult to design. For example, you'd need to run this test with mu…

The experiment would also be extremely difficult to design.

I disagree. I think all the factors you are concerned about can be eliminated with a large enough sample size, like in the thousands (or maybe 10s of thousands).

You allow each person to select the genre of music they like, and you play a few clips from a few songs of each bitrate. Then they guess which is 24-bit and which is 16-bit.

I'm not paying to set it up. But it could all be done online without too much grief. It would be good to track the other statistics (age, headphone brand, etc.) as well, and see if something falls out of that.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#113

Post by [deleted] »

hamiltonkibbe wrote: post #62
diydsp wrote: 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…

The resolution of both sinusoids in the example you suggest is exactly 16bits Edit: While it would be possible to represent each of those individual sinusoids in 6 and 10 bits individually, the signal you describe has the high frequency signal "riding on " the low frequency signal. you need 16 bits to represent the amplitude of that signal at e.g. t = pi/4.

[deleted]

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#114

Post by largote »

alkonaut wrote: post #89

24bit absolutely makes sense in the age of streaming devices pushing sound to digital inputs on powered speakers. Simply for convenience reasons I want to adjust the playback volume already at my phone. I have no analog volume control (or rather, it's a configuration knob you set up once) If you play back a sample at 1/8 the volume, you still have 21bits of range from a 24bit sample. Playing a 16bit sample at 1/8 vol…

Came here to say exactly this, 24-bit matters because of digital volume controls.

192khz on the other hand, is kinda pointless.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#115

Post by nkurz »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #64
nkurz wrote: 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.

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 X. This not be openmindedness exactly, but failing to account for this possibility strikes me as an example of closedmindedness.

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.

Which people, which music, under what circumstances? And whose results do you trust? I feel safe guessing that many companies selling high-end audiophile quackery claim to have done tests showing that their equipment makes a positive difference to sound quality. Some of them are simply lying, some are misinterpreting their data, others have something real too small to be reliably measurable, and a tiny remainder might have a genuine breakthrough because they are approaching an unsolvable problem in a way that sidesteps the previous barriers. The question is how much openmindedness is right to account for this probability without being overwhelmed by the garbage.

If no one can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, then 24-bit simply doesn't matter.

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. While the difference may well be too small to be actually considered "better", I don't think that any physical laws that prevent this. I think it would be fun to see such a test. This Youtube video on "overtone singing" might offer insight on the sorts of effects that might be enhanced by the greater bit depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTF1-IhuC0

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#116

Post by sillysaurus3 »

ansible wrote: post #112
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct way to attack this isn't by attacking the theory. It's to gather a lot of people and ask them to press a button indicating whether the audio they hear is 16-bit or 24-bit. If the results are no better than chance, then 24-bit doesn't matter, regardless of how sound the underlying argument is. EDIT: The experiment would also be extremely difficult to design. For example, you'd need to run this test with mu…

The experiment would also be extremely difficult to design. I disagree. I think all the factors you are concerned about can be eliminated with a large enough sample size, like in the thousands (or maybe 10s of thousands). You allow each person to select the genre of music they like, and you play a few clips from a few songs of each bitrate. Then they guess which is 24-bit and which is 16-bit. I'm not paying to set it…

Pretend your headphones only moved with 8-bit resolution. There is no possible way the experiment could derive a useful conclusion, but you might trick yourself into thinking it did. Especially if your sample size was 10,000 people.

More realistically, the participant might choose music for which no 24-bit recording exists.

It's very important to control for every variable. It's actually not possible to gather info about what headphones the listener is wearing. Even if it was, it wouldn't be possible to know whether they're doing the experiment in a quiet room, or whether there's a traffic jam just outside their apartment window, or whether their dog is barking during the test. Stuff like that.

Crowdsourcing this is an incredibly cool idea, but it'd just be so easy to believe you've performed a reliable test even though some variable undermined it.

I forgot another variable: Whether the music was recorded at 16-bit resolution. Most musicians use 24-bit, but it's easy to imagine that some of their samples might've been quantized to 16-bit without them realizing it.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#117

Post by ansible »

masklinn wrote: post #83
nnnnni wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$350/m HDMI cables... so, Monster?

Far from me the idea to defend them, but $350/m is about 3 times higher than Monster's most bullshitty bullshit cable. Even their "2000HD HyperSpeed HDMI cable" only had a $115/m MSRP in 5ft, falling to $32/m in 35ft: http://www.monsterproducts.com/Monster_Video_ISF_2000HD_Hype...

My great business idea was to produce a line of "organic" cables.

Our company would go to the remote places of the earth to hunt down copper dragons (as in DnD) and harvest their veins to make audio cables.

The "natural", "organic" copper has a warmth to the audio signals flowing through it that artificially produces cables just can't provide (they have harsher undertones).

Then we'd also have silver and gold cables, harvested from, you guessed it, silver and gold dragons.

These would truly be "monster" cables.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#118

Post by badsock »

nnnnni wrote: post #54
diydsp wrote: 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.

The increase in sample rate to 192kHz only allows frequencies above 22KHz to be represented (i.e. no effect whatsoever on the low frequencies that you mention). Pushing the bits to 24 only lowers the noise levels (which at 16 are already demonstrably imperceptible).

What you mention, though, points directly to what /will/ improve the quality of sound reproduction: speakers. It gets harder and harder to move that much air with precision as you get lower and lower in frequency. It's a definite technical limitation, but it's to do with very high-power amps and giant speakers, not the recording format.

We have (to the degree that humans can prove that they can perceive), perfect reproduction from digital recordings, perfect amplifiers for reasonable prices (at lower-than-concert-power-levels at least), but we haven't yet developed good enough speakers to cover the whole perceptible range of frequencies to anywhere near the same degree.

Audiophiles love to try and improve the whole chain, but really the only place it matters is at the very end.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#119

Post by ay »

nkurz wrote: 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…

The thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210878 (assuming StavrosK was not lying like one of the comments suggested), shows an interesting discrepancy in the vision of different people.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#120

Post by thisjepisje »

threeseed wrote: post #78
masklinn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Self-styled audiophiles are, by and large, idiots with way too much money plagued by magical thinking. Not just that. But the arrogance and fanboyism is rampant. God forbid you ever consider buying a Bose or Beats product.

>God forbid you ever consider buying a Bose or Beats product.

This has little to do with the article. If you've got 100 bucks to spend on a pair of headphones, it's only fair to point out that with certain products you're not getting the best sound out of your money.

Post reply on HN