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

24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

people.xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 328 posts

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#131

Post by aw3c2 »

jmull wrote: post #101

Just to be a Devil's advocate (just a little)... Sure, 24/192 doesn't physically improve the sound you are able perceive when listening to it. But listening to music is a highly subjective emotional experience. If a listener cares about getting the best possible quality listening experience and feels downloading 24/192 music will achieve that, then the listener will actually enjoy music more knowing it is playing fro…

And like homeopathy, this should be scrutinized scientifically. There is nothing wrong with eating tiny bits of sugared balls, but don't tell others they are somehow of special powers.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#132

Post by iaresee »

mruts wrote: post #4

Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…

> This is also why modern vinyl releases sound a lot better than digital: they are mastered differently since its assumed everyone is going to be listening on good equipment.

I'm going to disagree here. They are mastered differently because the physical limitations of the media require them to be mastered differently _and_ it just so happens that the physical limitations help limit mastering tricks in a way that produces less fatigue-inducing, brick-wall-limited mastering output.

A heavily compressed master creates huge peak-to-trough cuts in the vinyl which can cause the needle to literally jump out of the groove, even with RIAA limiting applied.

The assumption of the gear is definitely not true in any mixing or mastering experience I've had. Mastering tries to balance the final product across a range of listening devices, not some unobtainable ideal system. NS10s are kicking around because they sound like arse and make for mastering results that work well on car stereos and other "inferior" systems.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#133

Post by IWeldMelons »

mikeash wrote: post #29
PascLeRasc wrote: post #9

I have a degree in electrical engineering, and I'm currently in a graduate course on computer music systems, so I hope that qualifies me enough to avoid the author's ad hominem attacks he seasons this stinkpiece with. I can't stand seeing frequency response charts and scientific measurements in articles about audio. Like my favorite audio reviewer says [1], I listen to music for enjoyment and I talk about audio in su…

If two wines were chemically identical but someone claimed that one of them tasted “warmer” than the other, would you just go with that?

The is not the only scenario. How about you made some analysis of two wines and they seem to be same, yet someone can _reliably_ tell them apart?

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#134

Post by mark-r »

nirvdrum wrote: post #41
mark-r wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rip my CDs in a two-step process: first to FLAC, then convert to mp3. The mp3s go in my phone, I have 33GB so far and my collection isn't even half ripped. I haven't checked how big the FLACs are lately but I'm sure they'd be a much bigger burden.

Slightly off topic, but do you use something other than iTunes for this process? I'm looking for a good way to manage a FLAC library.

I use an older version of Media Monkey on the PC. I would have upgraded to a newer version but they removed the interface to the LAME encoder. This was before the patents expired so I should check them out again, but the old version does everything I need. I quite like it.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#135

Post by tigeba »

mruts wrote: post #4

Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…

Vinyl releases are mastered to be less loud than digital releases because vinyl cannot reproduce mixes that digital systems can. The side effect is that lots of times they sound better. I think in a perfect world an artist would offer you vinyl if you want it, along with a digital version of the vinyl master. You could skip the whole ripping vinyl process entirely.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#136

Post by nitrogen »

heywire wrote: post #94
mruts wrote: post #4

Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…

> This is also why modern vinyl releases sound a lot better than digital: they are mastered differently since its assumed everyone is going to be listening on good equipment. I had always assumed they were taking the same master and just carving it into vinyl. I wonder what percentage of "modern vinyl releases" are actually remastering before pressing...

At minimum they have to move all the bass to the center and apply RIAA EQ.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#137

Post by mikeash »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #133
mikeash wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If two wines were chemically identical but someone claimed that one of them tasted “warmer” than the other, would you just go with that?

The is not the only scenario. How about you made some analysis of two wines and they seem to be same, yet someone can _reliably_ tell them apart?

As long as the test is done with proper blinding, then that means the analysis is insufficiently comprehensive and there really is a difference.

Is that the case here?

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#138

Post by mruts »

stcredzero wrote: post #81
mruts wrote: post #4

Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…

Since everyone is listening of crappy earbuds, they compress the hell out of it and destroy all dynamic range. More compression and less dynamic range is beneficial for certain environments. Noisy subways. Watching TV in a noisy downtown apartment. Basically, crappy, noisy environments. In those, compression will help you actually hear the music and speech. However, the fact that this should be done in the master is…

But there are easy ways to kill dynamic range with an algorithm. On windows this is called "loudness equalization." On the otherhand, there is no way to go back from little dynamic range to more dynamic range.

So I think it makes sense that records are mastered with a lot of dynamic range, so the people who actually enjoy music can enjoy it, and the people who don't can just equalize it themselves.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#139

Post by matwood »

aw3c2 wrote: post #130
matwood wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where do you store these files that you'll never lose access? CDs? People with a room full of 8 tracks or cassettes would like to have a word. HDDs? Those fail all the time, plus any sort of natural disaster could wipe out your collection. Online backup? This seems like the only real option, but for me the risk/reward just doesn't fit. At least for now, the record companies and the service providers are both incen…

> Online backup? This seems like the only real option, but for me the risk/reward just doesn't fit. What risk? You can privately store your music anywhere, it's completely legal to do so.

I wasn't clear. The risk of a streaming service turning off some music vs. storing and backing up everything in some lossless format like FLAC.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

#140

Post by PascLeRasc »

mikeash wrote: post #115
PascLeRasc wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a waste if it's one person spending their money on something they enjoy? You're not compelled to also do that.

A reduction in their ignorance would make them enjoy the other choice just as much, but for less money. They’re spending more just because they don’t know the facts. I consider that a waste.

You're projecting. You think someone doesn't know the facts, but they know for a fact that they personally enjoy some certain wine or speakers or whatever. That's not ignorant.
Post reply on HN