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

281–290 of 326 posts

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

#281

Post by Terretta »

jodrellblank wrote: post #219
sjwright wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? ;)

Yes. Because one of the settings shown after the full room color sweeps is dB, and the sweeps will often set various speakers a bit quieter. (The goal of Audessey calibration is to eliminate frequency resonance hot spots in common listening positions, as well as get flat response from your speaker setup.)

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

#282

Post by JadeNB »

zachrose wrote: post #255
nullc wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe that it means that the superposition principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle) doesn't hold: the net response at a point is not just the weighted sum of the individual responses.

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

#283

Post by shabble »

newman314 wrote: post #256
kalleboo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm entirely in favour of increasing the resolution/bit-depth for video, but I think the general problem is more complicated by external factors.

The cost of renting a red one and recording straight digital vs hiring a film camera, process lab, and all the other parts needed quite possibly means that some films might never have been produced due to filming costs.

What measure of quality can compare X against X, if it was never made?

I imagine (I have very little actual experience here, so it's perfectly possible I'm wrong) that digital recording might make it easier/cheaper to retake shots/scenes repeatedly to get them right as well, offering another 2nd order quality effect.

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

#284

Post by cuu508 »

bigiain wrote: post #151
ErikRogneby wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It should be about the performance, not the sonics. There are plenty of old Motown and even Beatles recordings with distorted vocals, bad edits, etc. Your brain passes right over them because of the emotional content of the music.

This. I worked out a long time ago, that I enjoy listening to _music_, not HiFi gear. My advice to people who ask how to make their system sound better? Buy some music you enjoy more… I can enjoy a wonderful performance of a great tune played through my laptop speakers - much more that I enjoy test tones or gear-demo-tracks through sound gear worth something north of a new car… (not that I haven't been "that guy" in…

> My advice to people who ask how to make their system sound better? Buy some music you enjoy more…

Good advice, but you do need some baseline quality equipment to start with. Got my car with one speaker blown out, speakers wired semi randomly (left-right and front-rear faders don't work as they should), also powering line-in source from cigarette lighter results in funky background noise. Sounds great--when a good tune is playing and I'm able to recognize it ;-)

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

#286

Post by neilalbrock »

A few years ago I became really interested in recording music. I had been writing a little with a friend, using whatever crap equipment we could afford, the results weren't amazing but we were having fun and staying focussed on the music itself.

Then we starting recording other people. I became obsessed with gear, software and all the associated toys that go with any technical pursuit. I'm a programmer, so it's easy to understand how that happens but I totally lost sight of the music, spent way too much money and equipment that was nowhere near being required and generally lost the plot. I was tracking everything 24-bit/96kHz and bemoaning the loss of quality when I mixed down for CD.

Anyway, the TL;DR version of what followed was that we recorded quite a bit, lost interest in making our own music and then the whole adventure came to an end. Now my gear is leaving via eBay and I'm finding my way back to just playing guitar and trying to write good music.

24-bit/192kHz - pointless. Give me a small venue and a guy with an acoustic guitar any day.

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

#287

Post by roel_v »

JangoSteve wrote: post #179

Even without debating the science and signal processing arguments raised... In any test where a listener can tell two choices apart via any means apart from listening, the results will usually be what the listener expected in advance; this is called confirmation bias and it's similar to the placebo effect. It means people 'hear' differences because of subconscious cues and preferences that have nothing to do with the…

This is the same reasoning that somebody used when I was debating with her if insurances should reimburse homeopathic and other alternative treatments. Her reasoning was 'well if it works, it should be reimbursed, doesn't matter if it's from a placebo effect or not'; my position is that they shouldn't be reimbursed, but quite honestly, I don't really have a rational reason for it (at first I thought I had but it turned out I couldn't formulate it, which is the same as not having it).

So, while I have no option (for now) but to acknowledge your position, I still feel dirty for doing so.

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

#288

Post by goblin89 »

pja wrote: post #274
goblin89 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop being so paranoid about what you think you can't hear, and enjoy the damn music. Yes. Do a couple of blind tests with your acoustic system first. > It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate. Disagree. This claim seems to be ungrounded compared with others. I can believe limitations with bit depth and sampling rate (…

There's a specific "bug" in the mp3 encoding scheme which means that you get a pre-echo effect on fast attack waveforms. It's inherent in the encoding, so it can't be eliminated (although the higher the bitrate, the less obvious it is IIRC). If you how know to listen out for it then you'll spot it immediately. AAC / Ogg don't have that limitation & at high enough bitrate should be indistinguishable from the source in…

Well, actually it was that long cymbal sounds “fade” quicker and just sound different with lossy music.

IIRC I distinguished an mp3 encoded by iTunes with bit rate 192 or 256 kbps from its original in Apple Lossless (both played on same cheap acoustic system). I probably should test with AAC or Ogg, too. Although I have a feeling that it's pretty much impossible to keep intact those rich in high frequencies cymbals while keeping compact file size.

> I've decided not to listen for the pre-echo artifacts so that I won't notice them :)

You're much better at controlling your mind. =) After I once verified that the difference is audible even on cheap speakers, I can't switch back to lossy formats. It means constant wondering if that how it's supposed to sound or not…

That's, by the way, why Apple's idea of having ‘Mastered for iTunes’ label[0] IMO is worthwhile—at least you can be sure that mastering engineer listened to it this way. =)

[0] http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/mastered-for-itune...

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

#289

Post by TylerE »

goblin89 wrote: post #288
pja wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a specific "bug" in the mp3 encoding scheme which means that you get a pre-echo effect on fast attack waveforms. It's inherent in the encoding, so it can't be eliminated (although the higher the bitrate, the less obvious it is IIRC). If you how know to listen out for it then you'll spot it immediately. AAC / Ogg don't have that limitation & at high enough bitrate should be indistinguishable from the source in…

Well, actually it was that long cymbal sounds “fade” quicker and just sound different with lossy music. IIRC I distinguished an mp3 encoded by iTunes with bit rate 192 or 256 kbps from its original in Apple Lossless (both played on same cheap acoustic system). I probably should test with AAC or Ogg, too. Although I have a feeling that it's pretty much impossible to keep intact those rich in high frequencies cymbals w…

It's certainly true. Ogg is far less audible than mp3 - it's actually very decent at bit rates as low as 64kpbs.

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

#290

Post by b0rsuk »

sjwright wrote: post #78

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…

We have a lot in common.

It is said that in most cases 192 kbit .mp3 is indistinguishable from >192, and blind tests support that. Granted, there are instruments like castanets which make it easier to hear the difference. In general though, I can't distinguish 128 from 192 and I listen to music a lot. Also it's unlikely that my hearing is already damaged because I try to keep volume low.

But I've noticed that where I put the speakers makes a huge difference. I can easily tell the difference from speakers on the floor versus speakers on my desk. Where I'm at the moment also matters a lot. If I lie on the floor, floor speakers don't sound as bad anymore.

In the end, I use headphones. Midrange Audio Technica ones, and I'm probably already overpaying a bit. But I bought them for build quality and comfort, and I wasn't disappointed. I can have wear them for hours (Not healthy I guess, but I'm used to wearing them even with no music being played). Headphones have the advantage that it suddenly stops to matter where your speakers are and where are you relative to them.

Post reply on HN