24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense

[Gorille85]

Just found this article about the subject: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[me7]

Read this before, great article.
Many people don't want to accept that 16/44,1 is already overkill for the human hearing.

[seasonsinthesky]

^ if that were true, analog would kill us twice over xD (not to mention 48kHz sounds better than 44.1 as is, hence its inclusion in the DVD standard)

i read this article recently as well. the author makes many good points, but there's one bottom line he doesn't address, and it's central to why i subscribe to the hi-fi consumer 'revolution': if it's recorded at 24/192, i deserve the opportunity to own it in 24/192. we are rapidly losing reasons to drop to 16/44.1 (or 48).

[Gorille85]

Yeah but you can record something at a higher resolution than the ear can hear... Would that mean it deserve to be heard that way? Doesn't make much sense to me...

[me7]

^ if that were true, analog would kill us twice over xD (not to mention 48kHz sounds better than 44.1 as is, hence its inclusion in the DVD standard)

i read this article recently as well. the author makes many good points, but there's one bottom line he doesn't address, and it's central to why i subscribe to the hi-fi consumer 'revolution': if it's recorded at 24/192, i deserve the opportunity to own it in 24/192. we are rapidly losing reasons to drop to 16/44.1 (or 48).

All double blind testes on the subject I ever read about came to the conclusion that true 24/192 and downsampled versions sound identical to human ears.
The question: why should you throw away all your audio equipment and  buy new, expensive 24/192 equipment if it sounds the same?

The hi-fi enthusiasts should focus their energy to fight excessive dynamic compression instead.

[Orbert]

Somebody help me out here.  He's not talking about the encoding rate of .mp3 files when he talks about "music downloads" right?

Because if so, I don't care what mathematics and science he wants to wave around, there's no way he can convince me (or my ears) that 192k sounds worse than 48k.  If that makes me closed-minded and subject to self-fulfilling prophecies, then fine, but I know what my ears have told me before I ever looked to see what the rate was on crappy .mp3's I've downloaded.

[ariich]

Nope, different thing entirely. That's 192kbps, which is how many bits of data per second are processed in encoding the data.

[Nick]

I never knew there was anybody trying to release anything at 192.

[Orbert]

Nope, different thing entirely. That's 192kbps, which is how many bits of data per second are processed in encoding the data.

Thanks.  In that case, I have no idea what he's talking about, and I guess I don't care because I don't download music.

[Gorille85]

I never knew there was anybody trying to release anything at 192.

I'm pretty sure Dream Theater did that with their latest album. And they're not the only band.

[Nick]

I never knew there was anybody trying to release anything at 192.

I'm pretty sure Dream Theater did that with their latest album. And they're not the only band.

Nope, DT did it at 96, not 192.

[Gorille85]

Right, it was 24/96, which is still overkill according to the article. So yeah 192 would be pretty intense...

To me, the CD's resolution is the best music can get.

[Nick]

I mean it's a curve, with each jump up the more minute the improvement becomes. One of the things I think the article fails to address (I believe, was able to catch most of it before I had to leave earlier), is that sound is a wave, and so you can't simply say certain frequencies aren't needed. Every frequency has an effect on the other frequencies.

Assuming a price jump at every level I would likely stop at 24/48 in my purchasing, perhaps some 24/96 if it was coming from someone like Wilson.

[Gorille85]

You don't cut out any frequencies on a 16/44.1 CD... And obviously sound is wave. I'm afraid I don't understand your point.


Maybe you should read the rest of the article...

[Nick]

You know what, my mind had a hiccup and just went to its usual annoyance with mp3 promoting people's and you're absolutely right.

I agree that 192 is probably overkill, but I've always noticed a difference at 24/48, and that's the only reason I'll ever need to support the format.

[me7]

Do you know what 24 bit means for PCM? It merely increases the dynamic range. With 16 bit (used on Audio CDs) you get ~96dB of dynamic range, meaning the quietest and loudest sounds on the CD can be 96dB apart. This WAY more than enough for music.

Assuming you sit in a very quiet room, you still have background noise of ~30dB (noise causes by very quiet stuff like your own breathing). If you have an Audio CD that uses the full 96dB of dynamic range (none do it anyway because it's not needed, but let's assume it for our thought experiment), you need to set your player to be louder than the background noise. The quietest parts of you CD should be played back at 31dB to be heard just barely and therefore the loudest parts will come out at 31+96 = 127dB.
What does 127dB mean? According to wikipedia 85dB already causes hearing damage over long exposure. 120dB causes instant hearing damage(!) and 130dB marks the threshold of pain, where your ears actually hurt from the sound pressure. Our theoretical 127dB come very close to that.
If you sit in a slightly louder room, you'll need to increase the volume accordingly and your 16bit CD will sound even louder.

What does 24bit mean? It gives you a dynamic range of 144dB. In our theoretical 30dB noise room, it would go up to 175dB during playback. According to wikipedia, this is louder than a jet engine at 30m or a rifle being shot right next to you

You will never reach such levels though because your speakers won't make it this far without exploding.
Bottom line: anything beyond 16bit is a waste of storage space.

[seasonsinthesky]

your thought experiment is incorrect on several levels, the most important being that 24bit doesn't mean anything gets louder. digital sound has a ceiling that remains constant. recording (where it's most important) at 24bit enables much quieter sounds to be captured accurately, which makes all the difference on things like reverb tails. not to mention you rendered the entire thought worthless by pointing out that CDs don't even use the full 16bit range, so adding the 96dB doesn't make any sense because it doesn't have a real application. and this is primarily incorrect on the scientific level because the Wiki readings on jet engines, etc. is in dBSPL, while the theoretical dynamic range of 96 or 144 is dBFS – not every dB is the same type of dB, as it's entirely dependent on the reference point (something that makes decibels kind of annoying to work with).

also, people get really obsessed with the fact that the human hearing range tops out at 20kHz when talking about oversampling at 96k or whatever, and the fact is that they're right — that's what we hear fullstop, but that isn't all we experience. every frequency in a recorded signal affects every other frequency; every musical sound has a wide range of harmonics that distinguish them from every other sound; and microphones pick that up. the fact that the article in the OP even talks about subsonic shit clogging a 192kHz recording is proof that the 'shit' up there affects our audible frequency band. the fuck do i want an incomplete image for? i want every crisp detail the drum overheads pick up, which goes way beyond where the anti-aliasing filter sitting at 22.05kHz on CD-quality audio. plus, the point is to get digital 'steps' of information (caused by needing to sample) as accurate as possible to the analog curve that has no digital stepping at all, so the higher the sample rate, the closer it is to the analog source wave. that alone should convince anyone it's worth the bandwidth — the only reason anyone fights for 16/44.1 is due to poor perspective (like a programmer who makes an audio encoder) and being at peace with settling for less because it's been spoonfed to us on a shiny disc since the '80s.

[Gorille85]

the only reason anyone fights for 16/44.1 is due to poor perspective (like a programmer who makes an audio encoder) and being at peace with settling for less because it's been spoonfed to us on a shiny disc since the '80s.

yeah right that's just a downright ridiculous statement. I understand where you're coming from and it seems like you know your shit. But you act like a pretty much impossible-to-hear difference is a really big deal. Anyways, at this point we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[ZBomber]

also, people get really obsessed with the fact that the human hearing range tops out at 20kHz when talking about oversampling at 96k or whatever, and the fact is that they're right — that's what we hear fullstop, but that isn't all we experience. every frequency in a recorded signal affects every other frequency; every musical sound has a wide range of harmonics that distinguish them from every other sound; and microphones pick that up.

This. I don't see why people get so upset when someone tries to preserve music in its highest quality possible.

[Gorille85]

Than why are you guys enjoying vinyl? I mean it's a somewhat distorted rendition of the music after all.

You DO are right in the sense that I shouldn't be upset by that because everyone as the right to enjoy music in any form they want. And frankly I prefer it to be to that extreme than the shitty mp3s stuff way.

[ZBomber]

Than why are you guys enjoying vinyl? I mean it's a somewhat distorted rendition of the music after all.

You DO are right in the sense that I shouldn't be upset by that because everyone as the right to enjoy music in any form they want. And frankly I prefer it to be to that extreme than the shitty mp3s stuff way.

Listening to vinyl is a completely different listening experience from listening to an album on a CD. It has a very warm sound to it that I enjoy. I don't think every album sounds better on vinyl, but there are some that just sound so much better than their digital counterparts (Rumours by Fleetwood Mac is the biggest example of this for me). I don't get why that is ragged on constantly either.

btw, I've NEVER claimed to be an audiophile. My ears are pretty sensitive and I can usually pick up on clipping, differences in mp3/lossless, but I don't really subscribe to the whole "audiophile" thing. I do like having music in high quality, but honestly I rip everything to 320 MP3 and don't bother with lossless (I do opt for the CD if I have it, but I'm fine with good MP3s too). I don't really care if others want to listen to horrible quality mp3s, as long as the music is still published in a lossless format somewhere. I do view music as an art, and I think it is a good thing to have very high quality versions available for those who want it. People who don't care can easily go for the MP3s.

Something about vinyl has captivated me since I listened to my parents' copy of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, the first vinyl I can remember hearing when I was 14. I authentically enjoy the experience. I don't listen to it because I think I'm better than those who don't. I'm not trying to be a music snob. I just enjoy records. And personally I'm glad vinyl has made such a comeback in the past few years. It is a great medium. It's not always practical, but I love coming home and putting a record on the turntable, closing my eyes and just listening to the music.

[me7]

What I get upset about is that we have a serious, audible problem in the music industry: excessive dynamic range compression ...and hardly anyone seems to care about it. People rather pursue higher bit depth and higher sampling rates although no scientific test ever done has given evidence that humans can even hear the difference.

The true reason why so many new records (and remasters of old records) sound "lifeless" is due to compressed dynamics, not because of a faulty medium.

[majo]

mix and mastering matter the most
get those two fu*ked up and even 128kbps mp3 will sound superior to 24/192
get those two tip-top and 24/96 is enough even for 1million $ aparature (16/44 for normal people  )

[ZBomber]

What I get upset about is that we have a serious, audible problem in the music industry: excessive dynamic range compression ...and hardly anyone seems to care about it. People rather pursue higher bit depth and higher sampling rates although no scientific test ever done has given evidence that humans can even hear the difference.

The true reason why so many new records (and remasters of old records) sound "lifeless" is due to compressed dynamics, not because of a faulty medium.

Pretty sure the people making a fuss about 24/96 are the same ones supporting dynamic range... in fact I see MUCH more petitioning for better dynamic range than I do for 24 bit recordings.

[Gorille85]

Than why are you guys enjoying vinyl? I mean it's a somewhat distorted rendition of the music after all.

You DO are right in the sense that I shouldn't be upset by that because everyone as the right to enjoy music in any form they want. And frankly I prefer it to be to that extreme than the shitty mp3s stuff way.

Listening to vinyl is a completely different listening experience from listening to an album on a CD. It has a very warm sound to it that I enjoy. I don't think every album sounds better on vinyl, but there are some that just sound so much better than their digital counterparts (Rumours by Fleetwood Mac is the biggest example of this for me). I don't get why that is ragged on constantly either.

btw, I've NEVER claimed to be an audiophile. My ears are pretty sensitive and I can usually pick up on clipping, differences in mp3/lossless, but I don't really subscribe to the whole "audiophile" thing. I do like having music in high quality, but honestly I rip everything to 320 MP3 and don't bother with lossless (I do opt for the CD if I have it, but I'm fine with good MP3s too). I don't really care if others want to listen to horrible quality mp3s, as long as the music is still published in a lossless format somewhere. I do view music as an art, and I think it is a good thing to have very high quality versions available for those who want it. People who don't care can easily go for the MP3s.

Something about vinyl has captivated me since I listened to my parents' copy of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, the first vinyl I can remember hearing when I was 14. I authentically enjoy the experience. I don't listen to it because I think I'm better than those who don't. I'm not trying to be a music snob. I just enjoy records. And personally I'm glad vinyl has made such a comeback in the past few years. It is a great medium. It's not always practical, but I love coming home and putting a record on the turntable, closing my eyes and just listening to the music.

Fair enough!