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

24/192 music downloads are silly

xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 443 posts

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#361

Post by smosher_ »

smosher_ wrote: post #302
dzhiurgis wrote: post #300

I am sorry, but the authors' examples and parallels doesn't make much sense to me. First of all, what does sample rate has even remotely to do with hearing range? If we are comparing this to visual information, perhaps it would be best to draw parallels with video. Namely, sample rate would be equal to frames per second and bit depth to colour depth. In both areas we are still seeing improvements from TV manufacturer…

> If we are comparing this to visual information, perhaps it would be best to draw parallels with video. But it isn't. We perceive pitch more like we perceive color than how we perceive motion. "Motion" in audio is well below the frequency of pitch. Same goes for video really, but in video the framerate has nothing to do with the color, unlike how the sampling rate has to do with sound frequency in ( cough most) digi…

Can't edit: on topic, accurate response -> downvotes.

Stay classy HN.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#362

Post by danielweber »

tsotha wrote: post #280
masklinn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people buy $500 wooden knobs to make their volume pots sound better. (or was that a hoax? i can't tell anymore) Some people buy small pyramids to elevate their cables off the floor, some people buy mats to put onto your CDs before putting the CD in a player ( http://dagogo.com/millenniums-m-cd-mat-carbon-cd-damper-revi... ), some people buy $1000+/meter digital interconnect cables ( http://www.theabsolutesound…

>Self-styled audiophiles are, by and large, idiots with way too much money plagued by magical thinking. I agree on the "plagued by magical thinking" part, but not all these people are idiots. Some of them are quite intelligent, in fact. I think they just want to be "in the know", and are able to suspend their normal skepticism in order to belong. One of the smartest and most productive programmers I ever met was take…

James Randi has a speech (you can probably find it on Youtube) about how it is easier to fool smart people than average people. Smart people think they can't be fooled.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#363

Post by mhurron »

tsotha wrote: post #280
masklinn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people buy $500 wooden knobs to make their volume pots sound better. (or was that a hoax? i can't tell anymore) Some people buy small pyramids to elevate their cables off the floor, some people buy mats to put onto your CDs before putting the CD in a player ( http://dagogo.com/millenniums-m-cd-mat-carbon-cd-damper-revi... ), some people buy $1000+/meter digital interconnect cables ( http://www.theabsolutesound…

>Self-styled audiophiles are, by and large, idiots with way too much money plagued by magical thinking. I agree on the "plagued by magical thinking" part, but not all these people are idiots. Some of them are quite intelligent, in fact. I think they just want to be "in the know", and are able to suspend their normal skepticism in order to belong. One of the smartest and most productive programmers I ever met was take…

> not all these people are idiots. Some of them are quite intelligent

You can be very intelligent in one domain and be a complete idiot in every other domain. The result ends up being unless we're talking about that one domain, they're an idiot.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#364

Post by normloman »

andy_ppp wrote: post #357

So if this is true and CDs contain already 'the best possible' audio that the human ear can hear, why does vinyl sound better? Are we saying records have a different pressing/recording or something else?

Here's why you might perceive a record to sound better than a cd:

1. Vinyl introduces harmonic distortion into the audio signal. From a scientific standpoint, this means vinyl has worse fidelity than digital audio. But some people like the distortion, as it makes music sound "warmer."

2. In the mid 90s, audio engineers began mastering music louder. In order to maximize the perceived loudness, they use an effect called dynamic compression, which reduces the dynamic range of the recording (the difference between louds and softs). This trend was not present during the heyday of vinyl. As a result, many CD versions of old records sound worse than the original vinyl. But this has nothing to do with audio formats--just poor mastering.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#365

Post by ChrisGranger »

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #296
ChrisGranger wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit depth affects dynamic range, and that's it. The only thing a 24-bit sample can do better than a 16-bit sample is accurately reproduce the difference between very loud sounds and very quiet ones. That's all. For the vast, vast majority of music listeners, the difference will be insignificant, as they don't listen in an environment where a dynamic range of 144 dB can be used to anywhere near its full effect.

Yes. And 16 bit cannot by itself represent without distortion the full dynamic range of a lot of music. Most samples, most of the time, do not use a full 16 bits. This is why during CD mastering dithering is used. Take it from me, when you master 24 bit stereo tracks, and you don't dither, huge amounts of low level detail disappear. The detail in the quiets is there in 24 bit, and lost when its truncated to 16 bits.…

I certainly won't argue that 16-bit is just as good as 24-bit from an objective standpoint, as 24-bit is obviously superior, full stop. I'm just saying that for most listeners (everyone except those who listen at high levels in dedicated, treated listening rooms in very quiet environments) the difference will be inaudible almost all the time. Extremely low level detail doesn't really matter if it's lost in the >20 dB of natural noise in your room.

At that point the issue may become moot as other problems like standing waves, harmonic distortion, inaccurate speaker frequency response and so on creep in and affect music playback to a subjectively larger degree than '16-bit versus 24-bit does', IMO.

All that said, 24-bit is definitely the way to go since we might as well do it right even if only x percent of listeners will notice.

As an aside, thank you for being one of the conscientious 'good guys' in the studio. I collect music and wish I had a nickel for every sloppy recording I've heard.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#366

Post by rikkus »

shmerl wrote: post #71
rikkus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: Are you playing back with Rockbox?

Yes, I have it installed on a Sansa Fuze player. Waiting to get Jolla 2 handset when it will come out, and then will probably play it there. I'm sure though that VLC would handle it just fine on any Android device as well.

Great, might look into getting one of these myself.

Thanks for that!

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#367

Post by rikkus »

rikkus wrote: post #51
shmerl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. I store originals (rips and etc.) in FLAC and then encode in Opus (around 140 Kbps) to actually listen to. 140 is an approximation of transparency level, it can be lower according to these tests: http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm

Curious: Are you playing back with Rockbox?

Not complaining, but would love to know why this was voted down. I asked for info and got it. Seemed reasonable to me.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#368

Post by eric_h »

Stratoscope wrote: post #336
the_solution wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decoder/player doesn't know how to read between the bits. Same file -> same playback. If you hear the same sound file twice (or two identical files) and hear something different, you software is broken or you're imagining things.

Ah, well, the human ear is a much more finely tuned instrument than your decoders and players. Think of the feelings you get when you hear the ocean waves, the birds sing, a thunderclap! Can you turn this into mere "bits"? Of course not! That's why it is so important to protect against sub-bit quantization errors, and this can only be done with proper interconnects. Ordinary cables allow the bits to travel willy-nill…

I'm very glad you stuck with the bit (har har) and didn't resort to just telling him he missed the joke. Well done.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#369

Post by _broody »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #242
anigbrowl wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are low-budget audiophile products, ie they are still marketed mainly to boost the ego of purchasers. There are three brands of headphones that pros use: Beyerdynamic (typically DT-100 or DT-770), Sennheiser (typically HD-5/650) and Sony (typically MDR-7506/9). Beyerdynamics have somewhat better isolation so they're more popular in music studios, Sonys are more comfortable when you have to wear them all day so…

I have to try the Beyer some time. Agreed on the Sennheiser ergonmics - and the price. I can't stand the Sonys. They're specifically designed for tracking & editing - all that screech points up Bad Things Happening. But they fatigue my ears. Laugh now, but I landed on the Koss KTXPRO1 ( which are $20 to $40 ) and have basically stopped looking :) Most comfortable thing I've ever used and they're actually pretty flat,…

That's nothing laugh-worthy. Audio equipment faces massive diminishing returns. If you're looking for midrange sound you might as well pay attention to the people recommending sub-$50 headphones as to the ones talking of $150. For instance, the $30 Panasonic HTF600s is better-sounding than the $160 ATH-M50x frequently recommended as an entry-level audiophile headset. As for studio-quality headphones, chinese Superlux/Takstar models are as good as the $200-300 range.

Re: 24/192 music downloads are silly

#370

Post by mxfh »

dietrichepp wrote: post #277
mxfh wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a professional audio context XLR (as in RS-297-A) is pretty much equivalent with balanced audio, of cause this requires a balanced output and signal chain. Just as well as a stereo phono connector can be used for a balanced mono signal. You surely heard a GSM pulse on your speakers before; that's not just noise. Especially when living in an apartment where you can't control what kind of cold fusion reactor your ne…

In a professional context, XLR is not the same as balanced. I have several pieces of equipment with balanced connections, but only a minority of the balanced connections are XLR. Most are TRS. I think you are using a different definition of "noise". "Noise" is unwanted sound. The GSM noise you hear is caused by demodulation of GSM radio, in the 800-900 MHz range. At these frequencies, even a very small wire works wel…

Exactly my point in the first post in this thread, the reason why getting the DAC close to the output is a good idea in my opinion to minimize those types of opportunities for interference on otherwise reasonably priced equipment (DAC/headphone amp plus decent headphones for under USD400, or DAC with balanced outputs and active monitors for under USD1000). Balanced cabling and signalling is only a bonus but recommended for active studio monitors.
Post reply on HN