Live data from Hacker News

There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

people.xiph.org

211–220 of 326 posts

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#211
post #57
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know if the human ear can discern the difference between 0.03ms and 0.005ms but it's something I don't see mentioned often That's the time it takes sound to travel 8mm. Do you think you could tell if an instrument was positioned differently by 8mm?

The ears distinguish directional audio in part from timing differences in what hits each ear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization cites http://web.archive.org/web/20100410235208/http://www.cs.ucc.... that suggests the brain is sensitive to timing differences between ears as low as 10 microseconds, or 0.01ms.

It's not the timing differences, it's the phase differences. The ear is exceptionally sensitive to phase differences between the ears below 1kHz. This information is captured exactly (to well beyond the naive precision of the sampling clock) for any frequency below Nyquist.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#212
post #4

There's a lot of scientific-sounded content in this, but unfortunately most of it couldn't be further from the truth. I'm an ex-audio engineer and studied digital and analog audio engineering; this has been debated to death over the last 15 years. Digitally recording a triangle is the best example of why 48kHz is very limiting. The distinct sound of the triangle constitutes of a high fundamental frequency, ballpark 5…

I'm an audio engineer, too, and I agree that this has been debated to death. And I agree that frequencies above the threshold of hearing are more important than standard dogma (based on Nyquist theory combined with Pure tone audiometry) allows. It helps explain how audio gear with a 100kHz bandwidth sounds clearer than gear with a 20kHz bandwidth even when they measure the same in the audible band.

Have you read the Audio Technology magazine interview with Rupert Neve?

Greg Simmons: Geoff Emerick, the famous British Producer ?

Rupert Neve: Yes, he started me off on this trail. A 48 input console had been delivered to George Martin's Air Studios, and Geoff Emerick was very unhappy about it. It was a new console, made not long after I had sold the Neve company in 1977. George Martin called me and said, "please come and make Geoff happy, while he's unhappy we can't do any work".

They'd had engineers from the company there, and so on. The danger is that if you are not sensitive to people like Geoff Emerick, and you don't respect them for what they have done, then you are not going to listen to them. Unfortunately, there was a breed of young engineers in the company ( I hasten to say this was after I sold it !) who couldn't understand what he was bitching about. So they went back to the company and just made a report saying the customer was mad and there wasn't really a problem. Leave it alone, forget it, the problem will go away. They were acting like used car salesmen. I was very angry with it. So I went and spent time there, at George Martin's request, and Geoff finally managed to show me what it was that he could hear, and then I began to hear it, too.

Now Geoff was The Golden Ears - and he still is - and he was perceiving something that I wasn't looking for. And it wasn't until I had spent some time with him, as it were, being lead by him through the sounds, that I began to pick up what he was listening to. And once I'd heard it, oh yes, then I knew what he was talking about. We measured it and found that in three out of the full 48 channels, the output transformers had not been correctly terminated and were producing a 3dB rise at 54kHz. And so people said, "oh no, he can't possible hear that". But when we corrected that problem, and it was only one capacitor that had to be added to each of those three channels, I mean, Geoff's face just lit up ! Here you have the happiness/ unhappiness mood thing the Japanese were talking about.

copy here: http://poonshead.com/Reading/Articles.aspx

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#213

One thing I don't see addressed is the experience of feeling frequencies that can't directly be heard. There was a study done with a particular piece of classical music, with and without a particular inaudible component to it. The presence of the inaudible component drastically changed the listeners perception of the music. They described it as more dark or creepy (perhaps not the actual words used, but it matches th…

The author completely ignores infrasonics and writes under the incorrect assumption that our only perception of wave pressure comes from our eardrums.

I've never been able to enjoy listening to my favorite classical music on headphones or even smaller speakers, and it's largely because of the effect you describe.

At this point I'm resigned to preserving my treasured (and cumbersome) vinyl collections. Maybe if Apple comes up with some snazzy marketing term (e.g. "Retina") for 24/192 or even 24/92, and starts distributing it on iTunes, things might start to change.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#215
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have little to no musical background, and think that your basic math skills are a substitute. The overtones present in a cymbal or triangle are not straight multiples of the fundamental, they are chaotic, and are very important in determining the timbre. Anyone (and I mean that) can easily tell the difference between a cymbal with and without a low-pass filter with the threshold around 22kHz, because thes…

1: He said "harmonics", not overtones. 2: You can not hear inaudible frequencies. Because they are inaudible.

1: You're still wrong. One person's typo is not a slight against physics. 2: That's what "sarcastic quotes" are for.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#216
post #91
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have little to no musical background, and think that your basic math skills are a substitute. The overtones present in a cymbal or triangle are not straight multiples of the fundamental, they are chaotic, and are very important in determining the timbre. Anyone (and I mean that) can easily tell the difference between a cymbal with and without a low-pass filter with the threshold around 22kHz, because thes…

If anyone can hear it, then surely it must have been verified through a double-blind test. Can you provide a citation?

I don't know of any to point you to. They probably exist, but I haven't read them. Let me know if you stir some up.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#217
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, the human hear will hear a 30kHz frequency if it's fundamental is 10kHz You are going to have to provide me with a citation to back that up because that goes against everything I've learned and experience in 17 years of working in acoustics.

Humans will hear the impact > 20kHz frequency has on the lower frequencies, not the 30kHz frequency itself. That's been proven a million times.

"A/B or GTFO," I believe is the parlance of our times.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. I still think point 2 stands though. If your idol or another artist you respect, asks to remix your song, you may be fine with that. But if every person that buys (or pirates) your song can remix it you might be less happy about it. I write music and have considered releasing separate tracks so people can freely remix it but I prefer just having mixes that are controlled by me. Allowing another artist you know…

> Giving up that control is a big step and, I think, an unnecessary one. Why do you need that control? Someone creating something new with your work, doesn't seem to damage your work in any way.

I don't think there is really a logical answer, it's more of an emotional thing. Perhaps it is related to my personality (I like to be in control), in that case other musicians might feel differently.

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#219

I must say I get rather irritated when people spend time worrying about dubious 'tweaker' methods to improve their audio, when the most under-performing component of most people's sound equipment also has the lowest-hanging fruit: The room itself. When people ask me where they should spend money to improve the quality of their hi-fi or home theater system, in nearly every case my response will be something like "get…

I should point out that after room treatment, my next recommendation tends to be an amplifier with Audyssey MultEQ in-room calibration. I've never heard a listening environment that didn't sound unambiguously better with it enabled.

Did you read the article? Are you sure it wasn't just unambiguously louder? ;)

Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, the human hear will hear a 30kHz frequency if it's fundamental is 10kHz You are going to have to provide me with a citation to back that up because that goes against everything I've learned and experience in 17 years of working in acoustics.

Here is a Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound Basically, if you produce two ultrasonic frequencies, they will create an interference pattern at a much lower frequency than either of the individual frequencies. Modulate a signal on the difference between two signals, and you can create a directional speaker, since ultrasonic sounds tend to be highly directional (so long…

> Basically, if you produce two ultrasonic frequencies, they will create an interference pattern at a much lower frequency than either of the individual frequencies.

So the interference pattern will be made up of one low frequency sound and higher frequency harmonics. Once again the higher frequency harmonics are redundant, because you only need to record the lower frequency sound.

The only possible way ultrasound can be picked up by the ear is if the ear has a non-linear response to the input sound. Going by the information in the article linked, it is highly unlikely that any significant non-linearity exists in the ear.

Post reply on HN