I chuckled because this is so true, and yet tell that to the people who buy oxygen free copper 'monster' cables for their speakers, being careful to align the arrows with the direction of the music from the amplifier to the speaker. People, even otherwise reasonable people, will swear up and down they can hear the difference.
There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
221–230 of 326 posts
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and anyone who has ever sat down infront of an LCD flatscreen watching their favorite movie on DVD/BD using gold-plated $200 HDMI cable instead of $4.99 Walmart HDMI cable see the extra sharpness immediately. This is why non-gold plated non-OFC HDMI cables are down to $4.99 a piece from their original $49.99 during introduction.
That's cute. Obviously you've never recorded a rock band while riding the pre to compensate for 16bit's terrible noise floor and horribly limited headroom. You've never had the joy of ruining a perfectly good take because of that wonderful sound it makes when the volume spikes into digital distortion despite compressing the wazoo out of the input source. Glorious sound, digital distortion. Run a dentist drill through…
> Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [11] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons.
...snip...
> Modern work flows may involve literally thousands of effects and operations. The quantization noise and noise floor of a 16 bit sample may be undetectable during playback, but multiplying that noise by a few thousand times eventually becomes noticeable. 24 bits keeps the accumulated noise at a very low level. Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits.
The original article does say that yes, during recording and production, 24 bit audio gives you a lot more room to play with. That doesn't mean that you can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits for the final recording; just that 24 bits give you more room to keep out of trouble during production.
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#223One 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…
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and anyone who has ever sat down infront of an LCD flatscreen watching their favorite movie on DVD/BD using gold-plated $200 HDMI cable instead of $4.99 Walmart HDMI cable see the extra sharpness immediately. This is why non-gold plated non-OFC HDMI cables are down to $4.99 a piece from their original $49.99 during introduction.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#225One 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…
Mmm loves me some inappropriate downvotes.
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Human hearing is limited to 20k because frequencies higher than that are perceived as painful? Dont agree with that one. You misread the article. It's because there is so little response that being able to hear it would blow your eardrums (and even then, it might still be beyond your ability to hear it). There's no value in that. > 24 bit doesn't offer any advantages to sound quality? Sheesh. Not quite what TFA say…
I can admit that I misread the article when it comes to hearing limits. I was reacting to my perception as an audio engineer that a lot of people dismiss the importance of that frequency range.
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Don't agree with that one" and "Sheesh" are pretty weak counters to detailed, objective arguments based on extensive research and decades of test data.
Principle frequencies well above 20k as well as their sympathetic harmonics are pretty easily audible by me, try it. 24 bit is also extremely easy to hear. Arguably more important during the recording phase when headroom is valuable. Its just as easy to qualify everything with "placebo effect", as it is to be dismissive
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#228A person can not hear a 22kHz tone doesn't mean he can not hear a sound that contains 22kHz components. For example, a square wave contains lots of high frequency harmonics, the more higher frequency harmonics it have, the "squarer" the square wave gets. An ideal square wave forms ideal "0" "1" states. A person's ear might not be able to hear a 22Khz sine wave tone, but he might be able to sense the steepness of "0"…
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#229I 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'm a composer who works in film/games. I can assure you this is exactly what I'd like people to do when they listen to my music. I spend 99% of my time trying to create good musical ideas, and I spend 1% of my time getting the mix down. I get criticized (rightly) for this quite a bit, but it is hard to care about someone sitting in a >$10,000 labyrinth of sound equipment when I'd rather write a catchy tune.
Then again, when I write sheet music I have to endure some of the most soul-crushingly awful midi sequencing in order to check my work, so perhaps I'm too tolerant to terrible sound quality. Still, I'd rather people listened to the music, not the sound of it.
Re: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format.
#230My advice to you younger guys is to keep the windows rolled up while driving. I have no other explanation why my left ear is much worse than my right.