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

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

people.xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 326 posts

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

#251

Post by marcusf »

bigiain wrote: post #156
marcusf wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might sound/be stupid for asking, but what's the actual physical response from something at 22 kHz+? I have a hard time picking up a pure sine > 17 kHz. I doubt I'd get any aural response from anything at 22 kHz, so what's the deal?

The deal is just that you're getting older. Your ears just don't work as well as a 12year old's. Neither do anybody else's your age (within the bounds of typical human variation - probably well over 95% of use _never_ heard 22kHz, not matter _how_ "young" our ears were).

Yeah I get that I'm getting older. It's just, what's the point of having a stereo that gives perfect playback at 22 kHz if you can't hear it? I'm guessing there must be something since people buy gear like that, or is just a case of deranged audiophiles?

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

#252

Post by kalleboo »

newman314 wrote: post #194
shabble wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be some strange idea that analogue means 'infinite detail'. In this particular case, there's no significant difference between being limited by the original digital recording resolution and the grain size of a film recording. "[...] provided the source is good" is begging the question; it's no different from saying "District 9 could be better if they hadn't recorded in 4k (or whatever the Red One was u…

Obviously, I am not claiming infinite detail. There is going to be a limit based on the grain and the size of the film (35mm, Super, IMAX). 65mm film shot is going to be of higher quality than what digital is capable of today. While I have no doubt that digital will eventually catch up and surpass film, there inevitably is going to be a transition period where quality films were recorded (let's just say at 2k) where…

And we'll never be able to go back and "re-film" "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" on 32mm, it'll forever be marred by grain and poor low-light performance of 16mm. I guess I'm not sure what your point is. The best digital can present is currently worse than the best film can present, yes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it.

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

#253

Post by marcusf »

cop359 wrote: post #187
Anechoic wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree one-hundred percent about the room (although the prescription isn't always as simple as "get a thicker rug" etc). The other issue regarding high-frequency sound reproduction is that in most cases, the loudspeaker won't be outputting much beyond 22-25 kHz (assuming very good quality loudspeakers, cheap consumer grade units might struggle to hit a -6 dB point at 18 kHz) and even for the speakers that have usable…

I don't really know much about this, but wouldn't the 22kHz sounds potentially create beats in the lower frequencies?

Well, what I can think of is that of course you need to sample at > 2*max frequency if you do uniform sampling to avoid aliasing (by Nyquist), but that's not the same as playback.

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

#254

Post by thesunny »

aiurtourist wrote: post #248

Science be damned! Onwards with subjectivity! • 24-bit audio is magical. When I recorded myself playing guitar in 24-bit and played it back through my amp, it sounded like I was still playing. 16-bit sounded like a CD. • With MP3s, 192 kbps is a huge step up from 128 kbps. 192 doesn't exhibit any of the "swooshiness" heard in the upper range of 128 kbps MP3s for regular rock/pop/hiphop music.

The article states that greater than 16 bit has value in recording, just not in playback. If you took your 24 bit recording and translated the best 16 bits of it than output it through your 24 bit DAC then they are saying you won't here a difference. I say output through your 24 bit DAC so you aren't simply hearing a better DAC.

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

#255

Post by zachrose »

nullc wrote: post #233
cop359 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really know much about this, but wouldn't the 22kHz sounds potentially create beats in the lower frequencies?

Acoustic "beat tones" aren't "real" tones— you hear them because of non-linearies in the ear-brain system, but you have to hear the initial tones first. (Well, unless you're talking >>130dB SPL levels where the air starts becoming non-linear, but then lower frequency recording would capture it fine) If you could hear subharmonic beats from ultrasonics then it would be _very_ easy to demonstrate, alas.

Curious, what does non-linear mean in this context?

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

#256

Post by newman314 »

kalleboo wrote: post #252
newman314 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, I am not claiming infinite detail. There is going to be a limit based on the grain and the size of the film (35mm, Super, IMAX). 65mm film shot is going to be of higher quality than what digital is capable of today. While I have no doubt that digital will eventually catch up and surpass film, there inevitably is going to be a transition period where quality films were recorded (let's just say at 2k) where…

And we'll never be able to go back and "re-film" "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" on 32mm, it'll forever be marred by grain and poor low-light performance of 16mm. I guess I'm not sure what your point is. The best digital can present is currently worse than the best film can present, yes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it.

My original response was to the effect that the output should be high quality so that data is preserved if sampled.

Digital is the future. Hence it behooves us to have the maximal input & output possible at this time. Unfortunately, this is not common now and the price paid is that content created during this period will be stuck at the same quality level.

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

#257

Post by tintin »

I think this only applies to headphones. People also 'hear' sound with there body (skin). Maybe you could call it experiencing sound. And then there are resonating sounds that cannot be heard but help to create other sounds. But maybe this won't apply to a recording because your will record the result and not the tones that make the result.

This is a great article but I'm still not convinced people cannot have a sensation of sound out of there hearing range.

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

#259

Post by aiurtourist »

danbmil99 wrote: post #250
aiurtourist wrote: post #248

Science be damned! Onwards with subjectivity! • 24-bit audio is magical. When I recorded myself playing guitar in 24-bit and played it back through my amp, it sounded like I was still playing. 16-bit sounded like a CD. • With MP3s, 192 kbps is a huge step up from 128 kbps. 192 doesn't exhibit any of the "swooshiness" heard in the upper range of 128 kbps MP3s for regular rock/pop/hiphop music.

I believe you are confusing 192kbit compression with 192 khz sampling rate. Not at all the same thing.

Whoops! Guess I'll read more carefully, then.

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

#260

Post by icarus_drowning »

davedx wrote: post #247
icarus_drowning wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

stop being so paranoid about what you think you can't hear, and enjoy the damn music. 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…

What's wrong with caring about both sides of it? A good sounding catchy tune is something work spending that little bit more time on.

I don't necessarily mind effort spent on making sure that music is presented properly-- what I mind is when it supersedes all other concerns about the music.
Post reply on HN