Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…
But who is using MP3 players these days any more? I found myself to buy an iPod in... like... 2011 or so. Converted all the CDs I had to FLAC because losless was the way to go. Two or three years (let it be 5, doesn't matter) pass by, I got a better Smartphone, Spotify Premium and don't touch my 1xx GB of FLAC music anymore, because I don't want to carry around another device etc. I'm not sure but I think "owning" mu…
24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
61–70 of 328 posts
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#62Already discussed. Main posts: [2012] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310 [2014] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8689231 [2015] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10520639 [2017] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127633
It's a very good article which shows up again and again. Think it's 2040, singularity reached. AI runs the world and on HN we have this article popping up very frequently like every hundred Planck time unit .
>Think it's 2040, singularity reached. AI runs the world and on HN we have this article popping up very frequently like every hundred Planck time unit.
One argument I can see in principle for 24/192+ sound (not music) recordings would be if someone was a serious transhumanist and honestly did anticipate that some humans will move beyond baseline human sensory limitations in the foreseeable future (by 2040 would certainly count). Combine that with the sort of incredible environmental destruction we're seeing right now, with enormous numbers of species going extinct, forests being destroyed, insect/bird levels plummeting/moving even if they aren't going extinct entirely, etc. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to imagine that in 2040 somebody with genetically enhanced or bionic ears who really could hear ultrasonics (and had grown up with that, so their brain had developed from the start with that input) would find themselves not being able to ever hear "what it was really like" back in the 2010s even for a simple walk in the woods. If they had been here in person they'd be able to hear all sorts of things, but our standard recordings wouldn't have any of that, and in that time the whole character of forests may be different forever ala the silent spring. It's similar I think to one of the obvious guiding principles of modern archaeology, which is to try to disturb as little as possible precisely because we recognize there will be superior tools and sensors in the future which could pick up things we can't right now. Saving as much raw data as feasible in many experiments is also like that, even if we can't process it all now decades down the line new insights might be found.
None of that has anything to do with music which is a subjective human artistic creation. Even though instruments give off sounds beyond our perception, by definition we aren't taking those sounds into account in the creative process. Future transhumans would undoubtedly create transhumanist art taking full advantage of any enhanced senses, but that wouldn't apply retroactively.
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think our senses transcend what tools have the ability to measure? Maybe that was the case in 1970, but in 2000+, hearing (and vision) is completely understood scientifically and far surpassed by measuring apparatus at every frequency range. Saying otherwise is an appeal to what is called audio mysticism and is caused by placebo and confirmation bias, which was mentioned in the article.
Yes, that's what I think. I don't believe that hearing is completely understood scientifically. You're welcome to disagree.
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#64Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…
But who is using MP3 players these days any more? I found myself to buy an iPod in... like... 2011 or so. Converted all the CDs I had to FLAC because losless was the way to go. Two or three years (let it be 5, doesn't matter) pass by, I got a better Smartphone, Spotify Premium and don't touch my 1xx GB of FLAC music anymore, because I don't want to carry around another device etc. I'm not sure but I think "owning" mu…
I really don't think that's true. I think the "listening market" looks a lot like it did before; a large number of casual listeners and a smaller number of people who are in to their music enough to care about details. The second category does things like talk about differences in mastering between different releases, for instance, and Spotify or Apple are not going to offer you that 1973 Berlin recording or whatever. Tidal tries to cater to this market, but they don't have a massive amount of stuff. And then you get to bootleg collecting and people who record performances, old music that didn't make the digital jump and all sorts other recordings that will never make it commercial services.
I'm not a "real audiophile" or obsessive about collecting things, but I do have a lot of music (last I looked, about 60k distinct artifacts - mostly individual songs, but some of those are albums or nonmusical, also some dupes and garbage). And a lot of that is not on commercial services.
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#65The choice of colour analogy is unfortunate, because there really are colours that are "out of gamut" and cannot be accurately reproduced on normal monitors. If you have the opportunity to and look at one of the IKB works in person you'll see what I mean. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/klein-ikb-79-t01513 https://contemporaryartetc.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/fact-of-...
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Playing a set of high-frequency pure sine waves is the failure point for MP3, AAC, Vorbis, and Opus. Dial-up noises are close to this, which you can try encoding/decoding. And this is no surprise, since the point of the V.90/92 protocols is to cram as much information as possible into analog frequencies, and the point of psychoacoustic lossy codecs is to remove the least efficient frequency information of our log-fre…
So, a high frequency DTMF[0] construction should render a pre-echo? What’s the lowest definition of “high” pairs that would satisfy showing this encoding breakage but be hearable by a majority of people[1]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-tone_multi-frequency_sign... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbycusis
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are concerned about space, consider vorbis, AAC, or opus. They all will achieve a higher quality at a given bitrate (or equivalently a lower bitrate for a given quality).
Note that the difference is not large. A 128 kbps opus or AAC might be comparible to a 160 or 192 kbps MP3. So it's less than 2x improvement of file size.
the loss of quality from transcoding lossy to lossy is usually a lot worse than the difference in quality between codecs and bitrates (within reason).
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#68This reminds me of Monty's A Digital Media Primer for Geeks[0] and Digital Show & Tell[1] - the delivery, the explanations and the way the experiments are set up is superb. [0] https://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml [1] https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
The use of analogue gear in #2 is one of those things that as someone who _already believed what Monty is showing here_ I wouldn't have thought to do. But it really heads off a bunch of arguments. And twenty years from now it's going to be hard because you'll have to scrounge the gear from a museum instead of it being available for a reasonable price from eBay or borrowing it off somebody who kept it in the cupboard…
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think our senses transcend what tools have the ability to measure? Maybe that was the case in 1970, but in 2000+, hearing (and vision) is completely understood scientifically and far surpassed by measuring apparatus at every frequency range. Saying otherwise is an appeal to what is called audio mysticism and is caused by placebo and confirmation bias, which was mentioned in the article.
If it was true, the entirety of hi-fi industry would not exist. I myself built a number of amplifiers and, after a certain threshold, roughly .02% THD (total harmonic distortion) at 20khz, there is a very little correlation between the THD (what is usually measured)numbers and perceived quality of the sound. Which means, while it is true that is everything could be measured, no one measures the right thing (perhaps s…
Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (2012)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's what I think. I don't believe that hearing is completely understood scientifically. You're welcome to disagree.
Yeah, this is what I can't fathom. We can detect exoplanets with telescopes with 0.01 arcsecond accuracy, hear whale calls 100 miles away with an array of low frequency transducers, and model the shape of structures by forcing seismic vibration and measuring the response to 1 part in 100 million. We can image the HIV virus and detect DNA changes due to cancer. It's unlikely that we don't understand everything we need…