I decided to test for myself, downloaded Lacinato ABX and tested a 32-bit 352.8Khz flac I had lying around, to the same file downsampled to 16-bit 44.1KHz. I couldn't tell any difference. Then I tried 192k mp3... still no difference. Couldn't reliably differentiate 128 or 64kbps mp3 either. I had to go down to 32k before I could be certain which was which, and even then I still had to listen carefully. Think I need t…
24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
221–230 of 274 posts
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart. A…
This is easy to disprove by downsampling from a 24/192 source to 16/44.1 Even if the downsampling is (close to) ideal there are obvious differences. In fact if you can't hear the difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1 you shouldn't be working in audio. (Doesn't apply to consumers. Does apply to musicians and engineers.) It's like being colour blind. And if you don't understand the math behind quantisation, you shouldn…
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody uses 32 bit float for recording Yes they do, almost all high end field recorders used for film work are 32-bits now and have been for much of the last decade, often with some fancy preamp integration so that there is no expertise required for gain staging the recording. (I believe the implementations use a second matched 24bit ADC with 48 dB less gain in front of it). The result obviously doesn't have a nois…
There are precisely zero 32 bit ADCs in existence. There are ADCs that will provide 32 bits per sample but that's entirely different. Current technology limits the bit depth to 18-22 bits and going beyond that you'd be very quickly recording brownian (atomic) noise anyway. The point about 32 bit float is that it is a useful format for mixing, editing and general processing, so it is widely used in digital audio tools…
Due to their high cost such ADCs have no longer been used in audio for many decades. They may still be encountered in some expensive measurement instruments that need high resolutions at significantly higher sampling frequencies than needed for audio.
All audio ADCs have a very low resolution per sample, e.g. 4 bits or even lower, but they sample at a very high frequency, of many MHz. Then the bit stream is digitally processed to generate whatever format is desired for output, at a lower sampling frequency and a higher resolution, e.g. 24 bits @ 192 kHz.
There is a difference between the actual resolution at the output and the effective resolution, which is limited by noise, e.g. the 24 bit samples may have an effective resolution of 20 bits or 21 bits or 23 bits, etc., i.e. they contain noise with an amplitude corresponding to those effective resolutions.
The digital algorithm that converts the low resolution input samples (e.g. 4 bits @ 5 MHz) inside the ADC can easily be modified to generate a different numeric output format, e.g. FP32.
Neither FP32 nor 24-bit is the native format of the A/D conversion. If the ADC outputs FP32, that is even more convenient for further audio processing. Obviously, the quality of the ADC is independent of whether it outputs FP32, and the FP32 samples will have a different effective resolution on each ADC, which seldom would be as high as 24 bits, due to the noise.
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#224Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an extremely hard comparison to do well. I'll give a few examples as to why: Small differences in gain are ABX able much more readily than differences in noise at the 16 vs 24 bit level. So if the signal chain gives even a small difference in gain between the samples that's what you'll track. A reasonable conversion path to 16 bits for mastering will also apply dithering and some kind of brickwall limiting (y…
Yes, perhaps the amplitude was subtly different. This was supposed to be running the DACs to match the source configuration, not resampling into some common format. I think that is an unavoidable part of the whole end-to-end ABX test concept. Maybe it would be interesting to up-sample back into 24/192 and play both in that mode. But then people would argue about what type of up-sample to use. I was in my mid 20s for…
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#226This really is driving a muscle/super car, or drinking expensive wine. At the end none of specs or tests matter. It is a form of art. If it makes the listener feel better (even if its just psychological) then its probably worth it.
Correct. I've paid for Tidal for a decade because I just like the peace of mind that it's closer to the original recording. I'm sure it's mostly placebo, but I like it.
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart. I a…
This is an extremely hard comparison to do well. I'll give a few examples as to why: Small differences in gain are ABX able much more readily than differences in noise at the 16 vs 24 bit level. So if the signal chain gives even a small difference in gain between the samples that's what you'll track. A reasonable conversion path to 16 bits for mastering will also apply dithering and some kind of brickwall limiting (y…
But I think I lost the ability to hear the flyback not long after I passed twenty. The world turned silent as far as that's concerned (before, you could hear it anywhere and everywhere, in shops, homes, some workplaces..)
The "20kHz" thing is kind of a myth for most people, at least that's what it looked to me after all the testing we did at school. I think it can influence what you hear, somehow, but in any case it's for very young people.
> Most people have no idea how much their high frequency hearing degrades as they age because it plays approximately no role in your life, but it's real, dramatic, and as far as I know happens to everyone.
I agree completely. I recall some discussions a long time ago on RMMGA (Usenet: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic) where some distinguished and experienced, but middle-aged guitarists got practically angry when a young guy described the sound of a certain type of newly-introduced strings "harsh" and "like fingernails on a blackboard" when used on a particular guitar.
The difference was, of course, that what the young guy could hear is something which stopped existing at least when you had passed 30.. I was at an age where I too couldn't hear that kind of sound from strings, but it was still not that long ago and I remembered and had noticed the difference, i.e. that I could not hear what I could hear before. For example the huge difference between fresh strings and week-old strings (and that fact has, over the decades, saved me tons of money which I would otherwise have spent on replacing strings all the time..)
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#228They make sense for so called audiophiles who don’t understand Nyqist frequency theory. It’s like photographers who are confused about the difference between raw and bitmap (jpeg), videographers confused about the difference between linear raw vs log vs gamma encoded, etc. Just because a data format with higher bit depth/sampling frequency/whatever exists for editing purposes, doesn’t mean it’s “better” or makes sens…
I like your point about editing, because trying to mix too much tracks in 44100 or 48000 makes spontaneus click sounds which are not supposed to be here.
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#229As they say, most people listen to their music with equipment. Audiophiles listen to their equipment with music.
Re: 24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a 32-bit float recorder, you have two ADCs working in tandem to create a single audio file. One “low gain” ADC is optimized for high-level audio, and the other “high gain” ADC is optimized for low-level audio. If the high gain ADC clips due to loud sounds, the low gain ADC does not. And if sounds are too quiet for the low gain ADC to capture clearly above its noise floor, the high gain ADC still has plenty of he…
The first diagram in that article is pretty ironic in an HN comment thread about Monty @ Xiph's stuff. Have you never seen his takedown of the "stairstep" drawing?
This is a marketing page after all, explaining point-wise samples, reconstruction filters and "staircases" is way beyond scope.
Same as in images, pixels are not "little squares"