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

141–150 of 328 posts

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

#141

Post by nitrogen »

Kaiyou wrote: post #89
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…

> mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac I did a blind test between 128-mp3, 320-mp3 and flac hearing classical music. While it's true that the 128-mp3 is obvious to find, it also isn't too difficult to find the 320-mp3. Flac just sounds better. Described as a feeling, flac is more voluminous and doesn't feel cut short. For fun, I also let my parents take this test and they could tell, too. Th…

There is some definite perceptible loss in accuracy in the treble even at V0 or 320. There's a song with a synthesized treble effect that sounds quite different on MP3 vs. FLAC by Planet Funk, I think it was "Who Said? (Stuck in the UK)".

Other than that MP3 (or Vorbis or Opus, which would probably do better on that song) is great for portability, but I'd still use FLAC for storage.

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

#142

Post by mruts »

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...

You're certainly right, many aren't (I always check). A lot are though. I'd give it maybe like 50/50.

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

#143

Post by PascLeRasc »

mikeash wrote: post #137
IWeldMelons wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, that's what I and the person you responded to are arguing. See this comment [1] and the video I linked for more.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19320093 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlCG2fK-abo

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

#144

Post by mikeash »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #143
mikeash wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, that's what I and the person you responded to are arguing. See this comment [1] and the video I linked for more. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19320093 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlCG2fK-abo

Really? I understood your comment as explicitly disavowing blind tests, and I see no mention of them in the comment you linked to.

I’m not really inclined to watch a 25 minute video on this. What’s the timestamp of the blind test?

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

#145

Post by dang »

amrrs wrote: post #43
diminish wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very good article which shows up again and again. Think it's 2040, singularity reached. AI runs the world and on HN we have this article popping up very frequently like every hundred Planck time unit .

Could it be also because HN Front page algorithm (my speculation) of favoring domains (with something like Domain Authority) based on previous votes?

No. Some domains are penalized because of too many lightweight or off-topic posts, but no domains get a boost.

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

#146

Post by mikeash »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #140
mikeash wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the hypothetical person knows that the wines are identical but still buys the more expensive one and enjoys it more, then fine. Does that really happen?

Even if they’re ignorant, I don’t care how they enjoy themselves. The problem is when they start writing guides and reviews encouraging others to follow their ignorance.

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

#147

Post by behringer »

matwood wrote: post #108
jlarcombe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But aren't you worried you'll lose access to your music? I have to own it! I can't have it at the whim of multiple third parties to take down as they see fit. It's too important.

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…

Your beef with CDs is they'll become out of date? Did you not read the article, CDs are already pretty much the pinnacle of audio formats.

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

#148

Post by jrace »

matwood wrote: post #108
jlarcombe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But aren't you worried you'll lose access to your music? I have to own it! I can't have it at the whim of multiple third parties to take down as they see fit. It's too important.

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…

On my server at home, which has redundant data drives (drivepool) and is backed up locally.

I can access this from every device in my house, and from outside my network.

I can put anything I want onto my phone, USB stick or iPod and play in most any modern car.

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

#149

Post by mark-r »

aidenn0 wrote: post #40
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.

If you are concerned about space, consider vorbis, AAC, or opus. They all will achieve a higher quality at a given bitrate (or equivalently a lower bitrate for a given quality).

I'm not that concerned, 256K mp3 has been good enough. Although it wouldn't be hard to automate a conversion to another format for my entire collection, given that I have lossless originals.

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

#150

Post by jrace »

This same argument can be made for many things

Why have an engine in my car that can exceed all speed limits?

Why have a heating and cooling system in my house that can exceed any comfortable level?

Why have lights that get brighter than I need?

Why have an internet connection that exceeds what I need now? ========

I keep all my music rips in uncompressed FLAC - 1) because i can 2) because I have the most flexibility (transcodes) 3) because it is capable of capturing _more_ signal that the original contains

No point in bottlenecking my audio just because _other_ people are unable to appreciate it.

Post reply on HN