24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_wd2bm

by Kaapeine • 20 days ago

135 269 20 days ago

people.xiph.org

teach• 20 days ago

(2012)

dijit• 20 days ago

huh...

So I guess the programmer equivalent is distributing .pdb's (or, symbols)

Blackthorn10• 20 days ago

Pretty good analogy. Thing is though, the person who receives the 16-bit, 44.1khz music file can always upsample it to 192khz and not lose anything in the process (heck, lots of audio stuff oversamples internally to this level or beyond, for extra aliasing headroom!). I'm not sure about expansion from 16bit to 24bit though, downward expansion isn't necessarily perfect.

gizajob• 20 days ago

You’d be adding 150khz and 8bits of nothing.

viccis• 20 days ago

If you try to use empiricism when it comes to certain groups audiophiles, you are going to be sorely reminded that it's basically the equivalent of healing crystals for a different type of person. 24/192 is useful for mixing/mastering, but completely unnecessary for the end product to distribute for listening.

evo4• 20 days ago

24/192 is also great for digital synthesizers--if you're generating a waveform like a sawtooth that has theoretically instantaneous transitions, they can eat as much frequency as you can give them. Running at 44khz loses noticeable high-end content.

Most modern digital synths have already caught onto this and run internally at much higher sampling rates even if their output gets downsampled, but sometimes you run across a vintage plugin that runs at the host audio rate and working in a higher sampling rate is audible.

Blackthorn10• 20 days ago

You can generate perfect band-limited sawtooth waves at 44.1khz, there are multiple techniques for doing this and most production digital synthesizers use them.

Oversampling gives you headroom for aliases for the rest of the synth that is more vulnerable to it.

dist-epoch3• 20 days ago

No synth generates sawtooths by literally drawing a saw tooth in PCM. The distorsion you get if you do that is not subtle at all.

Applejinx3• 20 days ago

Hydrasynth aliases like a mad thing. My flagship synth ended up being Summit, and its oscillators are digital but run at a crazy high sample rate. Did likewise with some Chord Organ modules: that Teensy board it was built on could do chord audio at 300k and over a megahertz if you were just generating one wave as simply as possible. The freedom from aliasing really helped the sound, for all that it's a 12 bit analog output. A squarewave is a 1 bit signal…

nullc10• 20 days ago

24/192 is also great for digital synthesizers--if you're generating a waveform like a sawtooth that has theoretically instantaneous transitions, they can eat as much frequency as you can give them.

So if your synthesizers do not use proper band-limited oscillators then 192KHz is _FAR_ too slow. You'd want to be running at hundreds of KHz, perhaps a few MHz.

In reality synth software that doesn't sound like crap uses band limited oscillators and should work okay at 48KHz too. That said, even if the oscillators are band limited it may be the case the varrious modulations aren't band limited properly, as getting those wrong won't sound instantly wrong (in particular because you have to modulate to make it wrong, and the underlying change of the modulation may make it harder to tell its wrong).

Though also in those cases if you're not counting on every step being properly band limited then 192KHz may be an improvement but you're still probably getting some meaningful aliasing. I think given how fast computers have become relative to digital audio there is probably a good case to just make any "modular synth" run at 32-bit 480KHz or even 4.8MHz through every stage that could process the audio.

Maybe 192KHz really is enough to suppress the aliasing artifacts but I think to be convinced of that I'd want to see a system that supported both and validate that the difference between a downsampled 48KHz output from the two modes was below -90dB or something.

Or otherwise you can just declare that the aliasing is part of the sound and then there are no right choices... 24khz sampling, 48k, 192k ... who cares, use what you like best. :)

Aldipower• 20 days ago

Even with mixing/mastering 96khz is enough for persisting to files. But as another commenter said, 192 is useful, if you bend and stretch samples!

colmmacc• 20 days ago

32-bits are great for recording too because they do an incredible job of capturing the dynamic range without having to be precise on the preamp settings. It removes an entire job from the recording workflow.

192 for mixing and mastering can be useful especially if you're doing a lot of effects, especially anything that pitch shifts. But I've seen low quality phone-microphone recordings make it to the master; if you capture lightning in a bottle, it hardly matters what the settings were, what the microphone was, or anything else.

PaulDavisThe1st34• 20 days ago

The limit on current DACs is 18-22 bits. The rest is just brownian noise. Literally.

tshaddox• 20 days ago

They literally sell actual crystals that you’re supposed to place on top of speakers and amplifiers to make them sound better.

Blackthorn10• 20 days ago

We had a really nice crystal decoration that I happened to put on top of one of my TV speakers and, wouldn't you know it, it had this resonant frequency somewhere around specific human speech frequencies that drove us absolutely bonkers until I figured out the cause and moved it.

lokar• 20 days ago

I wonder how many people think that 24 bit audio encodes 50% “more”

recursive• 20 days ago

It is 50% more headroom above the noise floor in logarithmic decibels.

trashcluster• 20 days ago

24 bits is now ubiquitous and 32 bit is becoming the norm in recording studios.

lysace• 20 days ago

That use case is literally addressed in the first sentence.

evo4• 20 days ago

32-bit float has become popular in filmmaking/field recording equipment lately because, with a microphone preamp that supports it, you can capture the entire dynamic range of the microphone--there's no accidental clipping if you drive the gain stage too hard.

It's a bit redundant for a skilled technician, they're already used to setting the gain staging, inbound compression, and feathering the mics to avoid this in 24-bit, but if you're handing a boom mic to a novice and have a scene where e.g. someone's whispering and another person's screaming, it can be nice to not have to worry about it.

metalman• 20 days ago

sheeesh , measly 24-bit/192kHz of course it makes no sense, unless it is downloaded through low oxyegen wire, which somehow and unfathomably, must have been omited or forgotten.

b3orn• 20 days ago

If it has been transmitted via hollow-core fibres it will obviously sound hollow.

Tsarp• 20 days ago

This really is driving a muscle/super car, or drinking expensive wine. At the end none of specs or tests matter. It is a form of art. If it makes the listener feel better (even if its just psychological) then its probably worth it.

munchler• 20 days ago

To expand on this a bit, I appreciate some audio overkill because, if I do hear sizzle or distortion, it eliminates one possible reason and helps me figure out what’s actually happening.

It’s like having gigabit internet to my house: I don’t actually need it, but when a website is slow, I know the problem isn’t in my internet connection.

ubercow13• 20 days ago

Would 192khz audio result in less sizzle and distortion? Or more audible band IMD from the sound >22khz

meowface3• 20 days ago

Correct. I've paid for Tidal for a decade because I just like the peace of mind that it's closer to the original recording. I'm sure it's mostly placebo, but I like it.

yellowapple2• 20 days ago

It's also sort of an inverted “Van Halen demanding a bowl of M&Ms with the brown ones removed” thing for me, too. The vast majority of my Tidal listening happens over Bluetooth, so that 24bit/192kHz FLAC stream is just gonna get downsampled to 16bit/48kHz anyway because that's all any Bluetooth speaker or headset is capable of doing — but the fact that it's an option in the first place signals that other things are being done right, too (namely: that Tidal's whole “we're the streaming service that pays artists the most per listen” premise actually has some semblance of merit rather than being complete marketing bullshit; while recording quality ain't the strongest signal possible for that, it's certainly a good sign when musicians/publishers are willing to send over the highest-bitrate lossless recordings they've got and not just the same ol' compressed-to-shit MPEG audio you can yank off YouTube for free).

PaulDavisThe1st34• 20 days ago

The original recording of almost all music on Tidal was done with equipment that was very, very far from the 192kHz "fidelity" it claims.

handedness• 20 days ago

I tried Tidal nearly a decade ago, and the audible fluttering effect caused by their audio watermarking totally ruined certain types of music, like choral recordings, strings and such. It was obviously apparent on $20 ear buds driven by any device, far beyond the more stereotypical audiophile gripes.

I opened a support ticket but they never responded. After that it was difficult to take their lossless claims seriously when the labels were providing such garbage source material. Their whole value prop was totally hollowed out.

I don't know whether the labels still impose such horrible practices, but I largely gave up on streaming services after that experience and now focus on keeping good digital archives of my physical library.

starky• 20 days ago

I'm pretty strongly in the camp of trust the science and measurements for audio stuff. Thus I suspect its mostly just better sounding masters, but I was shocked at how much I noticed the sound quality of Tidal compared to Spotify when I switched.

wat100002• 20 days ago

I'd distinguish between differences that anyone can detect but some may not care about, and differences that may not be objectively detectable at all. Muscle cars, at least, are different in a way that anyone can see. Push that pedal to the floor and it feels different from a Honda Civic or whatever. Whether that difference is actually interesting or good is, of course, a matter of taste. Whereas audiophile nonsense is often indistinguishable even to the connoisseur and depends entirely on some form of self-deception. Still could be worth it, depending on what one considers worthy.

mock-possum• 20 days ago

That’s actually a really good comparison, especially because - yes I can hear the difference between an excruciatingly lossless digitization of a piece of music that I’m intimately familiar with, played back on expertly configured hardware… but the difference is so little, that most of the time, I’m find just listening to it at medium high quality streaming on a pair of <$50 headphones.

I’ve played with the nice toys, and they are nice, but for 100x the price, they barely deliver 1.5x the experience.

smilekzs• 20 days ago

Well, at least there are objective performance benchmarks on cars, and some of them are okay proxies of performance in motorsports.

https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/carwow-quarter-mile-400-metre-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nords...

dist-epoch3• 20 days ago

The whole audiophile industry is built on stuff which doesn't make any sense

My favourite: "audiophile-grade" audio players which allocate a single continuous buffer of RAM into which they load/decode the whole .WAV/.FLAC file, because supposedly the CPU "jumping" between "fragmented audio" causes audible "jitter".

Of course, they don't know that what looks like continuous memory to user-code is probably discontinuous in kernel/physical RAM.

Didn't check in many years, I wonder if they created kernel level players to account for that, to have "true continuous memory"

bellowsgulch• 20 days ago

The latter is probably true, but the former does actually happen, and it's easy to accidentally do--lossless or not.

lmc• 20 days ago

My favourite: "audiophile-grade" audio players which allocate a single contignuous buffer of RAM into which they load/decode the whole .WAV/.FLAC file, because supposedly the CPU "jumping" between "fragmented memory" causes audible "jitter".

Thanks for the laugh... this is absolutely bonkers. In case anyone is wondering, before sound hits our ears it has to go through a digital to analog conversion, which takes place on hardware independent of the CPU, operating with its own clock and buffers etc.

wat100002• 20 days ago

In addition to that, while it is possible to hit a delay and run out of buffer because memory access is slow (the most obvious would be if the input got swapped to disk at an inopportune moment), but the audible effect is really obvious. This isn't some subtle "oh my music sounds ineffably worse" effect, it's "my computer is glitching and my music is unlistenable."

justsomehnguy4• 20 days ago

Am486DX/100 was enough to decode and listen an MP3 at 22KHz (and maybe mono?) and was more than enough to listen for 44/16/2 PCM. It's 31 y.o. today.

platinumrad• 20 days ago

Don't forget: "most players use malloc to get memory while new is the c++ method and sounds better."[1]

[1] https://www.audioasylum.com/messages/pcaudio/119979/

billyjobob• 20 days ago

I can tell when my CPU usage spikes because it causes a hum through my speakers, so this does not seem that far-fetched.

justsomehnguy4• 20 days ago

It's just means you have a shitty audio tract with not enough shielding. Move to SPDIF/TOSLINK.

emtel• 20 days ago

audiophiles (https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/turntables-with-pace....) also claim that turntables can be rated on "timing, rhythm, and pace" in which supposedly the timing of the music can be affected by the turntable's mass and other properties.

How this would occur without also producing grossly audible pitch distortion never seems to be discussed.

cozzyd• 20 days ago

What a human centric view. I like my music to scare neighbor's pets.

PcChip3• 20 days ago

I'm curious if the audio was being sent bit-perfect to the DAC for all of these tests (ALSA direct), or if it was being run through the audio mixer and being resampled

I can always tell if my 44.1 songs are being resampled to 48 because they're being run through the OS mixer

dist-epoch3• 20 days ago

Proper audio resampling should not be identifiable. Of course, the OS mixer probably doesn't do proper (CPU expensive) resampling.

But a quality audio player should account for this and do it's own.

rasz2• 20 days ago

"proper" resampling was expensive in 1997 when Intel was introducing fixed sampling AC'97, but was below noise floor of CPU load meter in 2007 when Microsoft released Vista killing hardware mixing.

PcChip3• 20 days ago

I'm also one of those audiophile crazies that obsesses over which metals to use in cabling, power filtering, swapping opamps, and builds their own DACs, amps, and speakers

PaulDavisThe1st34• 20 days ago

If you're not on a US-based IP, you should check out https://src.infinitewave.ca/

It is an incredible resource to see the quality of the resampling algorithms used by the actual production software likely used in any digital audio workflow.

You will see that while the best are indeed almost 100% transparent, many are not.

speak_on21• 20 days ago

At a minimum, anything above 16/44.1 requires far more than just files: monitors, a treated room, listening position, DAC, etc... but most importantly - a trained ear. That last one is the most uncomfortable truth.

Blackthorn10• 20 days ago

Are you, per chance, a dog posting on the internet? Since 44.1khz sample rate is already past the range of the human ear, regardless of training.

clawlor• 20 days ago

Max representable frequency is half the sampling rate (nyquist-shannon theorem), which is still a bit above normal but IIRC the extra headroom has something to do with eliminating aliasing

move-on-by• 20 days ago

I don’t have great hearing, so I’m not sure I can really weigh in here (thanks punk concerts in my teens). I remember similar arguments around screens and 60Hz vs ‘the human eye’. I think a lot of people, myself included, can easily perceive the difference between 60Hz and something higher- given the right conditions. I would not be so quick to disregard claims of more sensitive hearing.

MertsA• 20 days ago

You need at least twice the frequency range for sample rate in order to represent the original signal. That's slightly misleading though, that's from the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory and it's a mathematical fact but that is true for exact numerical samples, once you add in quantization that muddies the water a bit. Taken at the extreme, it's straightforward to see why a 1 bit quantization per sample at 44.1 kHz would not capture a perfect representation of some analog signal even if there's only a 1 kHz frequency component to the signal. If we instead decide to sample at 10 MHz but still one bit quantization, now that 1 kHz frequency component can be much more accurately represented even though we're still using the worst quantization possible. Don't think of quantization like a square wave or a step pattern, think of it as "the signal is closer to here than any other discrete value".

Now in terms of realistic audio encoding, 16 bit at 44.1 kHz is designed to be a faithful representation as far as human hearing is concerned. Can someone with a trained ear potentially tell the difference between that and 24 bit at 192 kHz? In a studio environment it's possible. Most audiophile claims are dubious and a blind A/B test catches them out on most of it but the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem does not directly apply to quantized samples, it's about exact samples and with quantization, sampling rate is intertwined somewhat with the quantization depth.

speak_on21• 20 days ago

As I responded below, you are confusing math with physical reality. A true 44.1 kHz converter can't realistically capture frequencies ~18-20 kHz due to the limitations of filters used in the process. A perfect lowpass brick-wall filter just does not exist - they all introduce artifacts, which a trained ear can identify. You don't need to be a dog to hear the difference, just someone who does not assume that Nyquist theorem can be magically applied in the real world (and, ideally, someone who utilizes high quality converters with oversampling).

scns• 20 days ago

A treated room would be the most impactful, DACs the least.

yellowapple2• 20 days ago

The DAC is pretty impactful if it's outright incapable of outputting anything beyond the usual 48kHz :)

speak_on21• 20 days ago

The most impactful for noticing the difference? Again, I would argue it's the trained ear. If you have plenty of mixing experience then all these details add up, and a treated room becomes the most critical - agree with that.

UtopiaPunk• 20 days ago

If you want to hear the difference between an audio file recorded at 44.1 and 88.2kHZ, then you need slow the audio playback down. Otherwise, a trained ear cannot physically hear the difference.

speak_on21• 20 days ago

44.1 is "enough" only in theory. This assumes a physically impossible steep filter. Realistically, frequencies around 20 kHz will create audible artifacts (aliasing). So yes, a trained ear can tell the diffrenece between 44.1 and even 48 kHz. Like many other commenters in this thread, you are mixing up math theory with physical limitations of AD/DA converters. Oversampling is a common way to address this limitation, but strictly speaking 44.1 kHz is not as obviously "enough" as it seems.

haunter• 20 days ago

The more the bits the better the music, easy as one two three

Don't forget to buy the new low oxygen platinum plated HDMI cables for the better experience!

0l• 20 days ago

Obligatory mention of https://xiph.org/video/ which clears up a lot of misconceptions.

jerf• 20 days ago

If you can't hear the squeals of the plants [1] in the studio's reception area, are you really getting the full experience of a piece of music?

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/world/plants-make-sounds-scn

Blackthorn10• 20 days ago

Oh great. And here I thought that fantasy literature where forest elves could hear the screams of the plants they stepped on when they walked was just that -- fantasy.

SketchySeaBeast• 20 days ago

Triffid music.

z_open• 20 days ago

As they say, most people listen to their music with equipment. Audiophiles listen to their equipment with music.

nntwozz2• 20 days ago

This is perfect, thank you this goes straight into my long-term memory bank.

On a tangent, whenever someone mentions LP sounding warmer or whatever I like to point out that I prefer wax cylinders (a.k.a. phonograph cylinders).

fecal_henge• 20 days ago

You Edison shill.

_kb• 20 days ago

Those wax cylinders are a modern hack. The curved surface distorts the real artistic intent. The only way to appreciate the true beauty of sound is a the purity of soot etchings on a phonautogram.

mingus882• 20 days ago

That’s true, but I consider myself a collector. Think of how a comic book collector operates.

If I have an option to get a 16bit version of a recording or a high-res version, I choose the highest quality version very time

Same with a physical copy. A limited edition, better quality vinyl LP is more attractive if you are going through the trouble of curating a collection.

I’ve been curating a music library of digital files since before the iPod was released and I will always go for the highest quality version out of principle. I can always downsample it to any thing that makes sense.

pimeys5• 20 days ago

I might be something from the middle. Yes, I did spend a hefty 5000 euros to my headphone setup. And yes it sounds absolutely magical and every day I'm happy listening to music with it.

But I also have a large multi-terabyte music collection, I follow new music, go to concerts, go to parties, talk about music with my friends in signal group chats.

It's a hobby, and when you get a bit older and start having some savings, if you love music treating yourself with a better system is not that crazy.

UmYeahNo• 20 days ago

When I got old enough to finally afford those toys I discovered I couldn't hear above 16khz anymore.

az226• 20 days ago

What’s the quality of this trove? As in bitrate or similar.

eimrine2• 20 days ago

Why not to listen to the equipment from time to time? And why not to learn how class D sounds?

rahimnathwani• 20 days ago

The article says "I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of the 'same' recording. This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different."

It may be simultaneously true that:

A) Humans cannot tell the difference between 44.1kHz/16-bit audio and any higher resolution, and

B) For a particular song, the best commercially available 44.1kHz/16-bit version may not be the best commercially available version

zamadatix2• 20 days ago

While 100% true, I'd phrase B) as:

"The quality of the particular mastering can still make a noticeable difference, regardless of the ability for the digital sampling rates to perfectly represent it perceptually"

Just to be clear that the statement applies to any releases meeting the A) criteria, not just 44.1 kHz @ 16-bit ones.

black_knight• 20 days ago

I usually A/B test the different versions before choosing my canonical one. I will listen to the same sections in each version, flipping back and forth to hear the differences. It is incredible how much finding the right master improves the experience of listening to a track. Often times that means I end up with a hi-res version, but not always.

Arodex• 20 days ago

I completely accept that human audition has limits that are easy to determine by playing a pure sound. But is it the same with music, where multiple frequencies are played and interfere with each other? Aren't some harmonics or effects created by these "inaudible" frequencies?

To try to imagine something similar: the human eye is unable to see UV light, yet fluorescent paint has a visible quality of its own compared to "normal" pigments.

nok22kon9• 20 days ago

when beams of ultrasounds interract they can produce audible frequencies

this has practical applications

WarmWash• 20 days ago

Foobar2000 has an extension that allows you to blindly test whether you can tell the difference between two tracks.[1] The prime use is to compare different encodings of the same song from the same lossless master.

It kind of changed me a bit when I ran through 20 lossless tracks I had re-encoded to various mp3 bitrates and realized that even on a fancy system, it can be really hard if not impossible to discern even moderate lossy from lossless.

If you are an audiophile geek, really think about if you want to try this, the reality check might crack your foundations.

[1]https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

pimeys5• 20 days ago

But try out to stream that mp3 from your home server in lower bitrate to save data, e.g. as opus. And now you suddenly hear the lossy encoding.

We store files in the highest quality because it gives us the option to encode the music without audible loss of quality.

vitamark• 19 days ago

I personally encode flacs as 192/256k opus from the start and that's fairly enough for most data save purposes, so no reencode for streaming is needed

that's a bitrate of 1GB per 9-12h, and for cases when it's too much I just have cached music on my device (I'm lucky to have mostly empty storage on my 256gb phone)

me551ah• 20 days ago

Nobody downloads music these days and everybody just streams. Audio at 24 bit still takes a small fraction of the bandwidth that 1080p video takes, so I don’t understand the hate for it.

I use a DAC by focusrite which can do 24-bit, and if I want to listen to higher fidelity audio on my planer headphones then I should be able to. Why should I limit myself to 16-bit

mingus882• 20 days ago

Counterpoint: bandcamp is doing well. Vinyl sales are doing well.

If I like an artist that I find on streaming, I buy an LP and get a lossless download for free. I still have a music library and I will never rent my favorite music.

Artists prefer to connect directly with their fans and BC is probably the best platform for people who care to pay and support acts directly. They have high res downloads and I import them.

zamadatix2• 20 days ago

I don't think the hate is about people who know it doesn't actually sound different if the audio file is 16 bit or 24 bit or necessarily about receiving a few more bytes than they need, it's about the pushes by these types of streaming services/offerings or people insisting that it's supposed to be any better for listening when it's not.

Also the playback rate and the file rate are different topics. The former can get into scenarios more like the audio processing section of the article e.g. I had this one shitty headset for work which required me to set the volume to 1-2 (out of 100) on the computer and I could actually blind test tell when it was in 16 bit or 24 bit mode because it was cutting and boosting it so much it effectively lost precision in 16 bit mode.

pimeys5• 20 days ago

Wait, what? I do download everything I listen. And Roon is quite popular in the music communities. How else you can make sure you have that correct mastering of your favorite album?

glimshe• 20 days ago

Just get one of those "hi fi" valve amplifiers from Amazon you see under $100. The valve already distorts the sound, so you don't need to bother paying more for low distortion anywhere else in the audio chain. Saved you thousands of dollars, done!

PaulDavisThe1st34• 20 days ago

Distortion is why people love the sound of vinyl.

And its all good! It's perfectly fine to say "I prefer the sound when the whole mix (or just that guitar) ends up being subject to interesting and possibly harmonically relevant distortion at low levels".

Just don't say "The version with the distortion is more accurate than the one without", because that's a lie.

hobonation2• 20 days ago

Counter: An ultra high bit rate solves the problem and you can stop worrying if it's the weakest link.

You can the focus on other things.

Example: I Bought the best skis possible. Now I know I need to just focus on my skills and not blame the equipment.

hackingonempty2• 20 days ago

The point of this article and video is there is no problem with 16-bit 44-kHZ PCM. It thoroughly covers the audible range and is there is absolutely no need for more when distributing music for humans to listen to.

The problem is the people spreading myths and disinformation out of ignorance or to promote their enterprise.

The weak links are producers/mastering-engineers, speakers/headphones and the room when using speakers.

RijilV• 20 days ago

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but high end skis make tradeoffs which are harmful to beginner or intermediate level skiers... also there's sorta no thing as "best ski". what you'd want for high speed bombing double blacks is going to be different from off piste or moguls or snow park fun.... double also, skis wear out. Depending on who you want to believe it's as low as 20-30 days. Which, granted the average skier is at something like 5 days a year. but if that's you... triple also?

As for how this relates to audio compression, in particular in the context of 2012. you are making a tradeoff of storage size and decompression cost. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but maybe it either did in 2012 or still does.

hobonation2• 19 days ago

You're acting like I don't have everything from Hellbents all the way to Fisher GS skis all the way into Vole Scaled Skis for Telemarking. Just don't buy shit, and you don't get to blame the equipment.

And none of them are broken after 20 days unless it's low tide or I fuck up on a cliff band. I ski a minimum of 100 days a year, and the only thing you can notice after 60 days is some slight decambering on softer skis.

I will say that boots tend to get soft around 100 days. But usually dealing with that's also a skill issue; get good balance, and you don't have to have the boot hold your sorry form in place. It's how people basically skied for a thousand years with leather boots: They were good.

hackingonempty2• 20 days ago

@xiphmont also made an amazing video response to the many responses he received to this article. Using analog equipment he busts a bunch of myths and demonstrates what really happens with digital audio.

https://video.xiph.org/vid2.shtml

or on YT if you can't play it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

niccl• 20 days ago

Thank you for posting this. I thought I knew a bit about what was going on with audio sampling and reproduction, but I learned a surprising amount from this well presented introduction

justin66• 20 days ago

A classic.

pringk02• 20 days ago

One of the best educational videos on any topic ever imo. I can't help but watch it again each time. So incredibly well paced and accessible

stego-tech2• 20 days ago

I cannot hear the difference between 16/44.1 (and by extension, 16/48) and High-Res Content generally, be they HDCD, SACD, or just straight-up Masters from Qobuz. This is on multiple sets of equipment, ranging from El Cheapo earbuds all the way to HD800 cans and full-fledged tower speakers being bi-amped.

That’s not why I go for High-Res stuff, though.

It’s all about archival, at least for me. With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater. The point isn’t that I can hear the difference, it’s the fear that I might lose something irrecoverable by sticking with lower-quality files for bulk storage. Once data has been discarded, it cannot be retrieved, and that influences my preference for storage (and is also why my BD/UHD rips are into MKVs, no re-encoding).

Now that being said, I will absolutely hem and haw and ABX different releases to determine if I opt for the 16/44.1 CD rip of an album from the 80s or the new 202X remaster in 24/192 (spoiler: almost always the former), and I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats because of a subjective perception of a wider, clearer sound stage, though this is almost certainly a psychological effect from performing in concert bands and orchestras rather than physical or objective in nature.

Like I tell newcommers: if it sounds better enough to you to warrant the purchase price, then that’s all that really matters. Enjoy the hobby.

Cider99863• 20 days ago

I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC.

stego-tech2• 20 days ago

And that's fine! I've got a flatmate who loves 320kpbs MP3s on studio monitors, I've got musician friends who swear by CD-audio and Sennheiser HD200s, and others who love how vinyl uniquely degrades over time on big speakers.

The takeaway from these sorts of posts, at least in my opinion, should be two-fold:

* Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts

* Liberate you from the "tech grind" and allow you to enjoy what you like, how you like it.

nullc10• 20 days ago

I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC.

A reasonable definition of transparency for high bitrate compressed audio is "Can the worst files be distinguished by a listener trained in what artifacts sound like". Maybe also add in having to use a high discrimination listening setup, including not running excessively loud (increases masking).

If that's not the test you're doing, it's unsurprising. At moderately high bitrates no one can reliably distinguish them on arbitrary samples: most inputs are easy.

If you test on known-difficult "killer samples" you'll probably easily distinguish them, even without first being shown what to look for, and certainly after.

During the development of Opus I created many 'trained listeners' and selected many killer samples, and I don't recall* ever encountering a tin ear that couldn't be taught to ABX any high rate samples, though some people are obviously much better at it.

I'm not sure I'd recommend it though: learning to identify artifacts has a frequent side effect of making low rate audio like the HE-aac used in SirusXM absolutely intolerable. I'm bothered by it even when I hear cars driving by using it. :)

[*] My memory for such things sucks, so I could be wrong-- but my point that it's not expected remains.

saltcured4• 20 days ago

Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart.

I also spent a lot of time ripping my old CDs to FLAC and trying different MP3 and AAC encoder settings to get playback that felt transparent enough to me. I could never tolerate Sirius/XM radio streaming due to the horrid compression I heard with every futile attempt. I still seem to have more sensitive hearing than most people around me, but in my 50s I know it isn't what it once was.

I never had huge budgets, but did strive for hi-fi in my limited ways. I used things like toslink and HDMI to send raw PCM data from Linux to my Yamaha A/V receiver's DACs + amplifier to drive somewhat nice Polk tower speakers. But then COVID-19 happened, and this stuff was packed up to move house.

Nowadays, music playback is streaming with mundane "subwoofer + satellite" PC speakers or MP3 playback with a mini-SD card permanently parked in my car's infotainment system.

empiricus• 20 days ago

Even for PC, I recommend some cheap studio monitors.

vor_6• 20 days ago

Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart.

As referenced in the article, a common explanation for those audible differences is that the high-resolution version of the album is sourced from a different master.

nullc10• 20 days ago

This is an extremely hard comparison to do well. I'll give a few examples as to why:

Small differences in gain are ABX able much more readily than differences in noise at the 16 vs 24 bit level. So if the signal chain gives even a small difference in gain between the samples that's what you'll track. A reasonable conversion path to 16 bits for mastering will also apply dithering and some kind of brickwall limiting (you have to limit after the dither or as part of the dither as dither can change levels!), and this can result in gain changes. The DAC may behave differently or have outright bugs for some configurations too.

This is particularly true wrt reconstruction filters for sample rate differences. And if you were comparing 44.1k and 192k then the physical DAC itself was likely running at a different rate and its _analog_ filters are probably better optimized for one vs the other (this is less true for 48k vs 192k, as the hardware likely runs at the same rate for both). So one answer to this comparison can be "on this particular hardware this rate is better than that rate"-- but that's a implementation property not a property of format choice.

You might think, "okay I'll use a mathematically perfect down and up conversion process and run the DAC in the exact same configuration for all cases". But even then you run into issues like after reconstruction the _inter sample_ peak levels will be higher than the levels of the samples, so you have to handle that and in a way that doesn't produce a gain difference between the two configurations. (probably by running your perfect process and finding the gain level that results in no limiting, then making the gain of the original match).

And then for the high rate vs non-high rate you have to deal with the fact that most amplifiers are not particularly linear (compared to well constructed software at least!) and that any real speaker is very far from linear. This means that the presence or absence of ultrasonics will change the audio in the 0-20khz band.. Before you think "well that could be a reason that high rate is better" observe that if there was some consistently good effect from the ultrasonics you could just bake it into the low rate sample.

but in my 50s I know

Yeah if you're in your 50's you're absolutely not hearing differences way up above 20khz (especially if you're male), I bet you can't even hear CRT flybacks from 100 yards anymore. :P Most people have no idea how much their high frequency hearing degrades as they age because it plays approximately no role in your life, but it's real, dramatic, and as far as I know happens to everyone.

I don't mean to discount your experience: I don't really doubt that it was real. But answering the general question of the necessity of low vs high rate probably takes a team of experts, armed with test gear and the designs of the HW/SW in question, to vet the test configuration. Testing a _particular_ configuration without the ability to distinguish its implementation quirks from format-fundamentals is much easier and that's what most attempts to test this question are actually testing.

By testing in a recording studio you were doing far better than most such comparisons. Usually people try comparing different files and they're comparing entirely different mastering processes. Files made for the "high res" market will often have much less compression and limiting then files made for commercial radio play / casual listening... and truly do sound obviously much better. Some of my favorite recordings are rips from vinyl. Vinyl is an awful format from the perspective of audio fidelity, but it's also pretty intolerant of excessive compression and limiting because the record will skip if the needle is bouncing off the rails. And more recently I suppose they also avoid over compression there because of the difference in target listener/environment.

Applejinx3• 20 days ago

That would be how you'd go about telling, sure enough. You can't go by 'frequencies' or distortions or anything like that, these analog departures from convincing reality aren't how digital failings manifest.

You try to hear the brickwall by the muffled, enclosed quality and possibly by the weird pre-ring blurriness of the filter making things sound more vague than they have to be, and you hear the truncation not because it is audible 'distortion' as we know it, but because depth collapses and it sounds like it's coming from the speakers and not being a separate space behind/around the speakers. At no point will it be the most glaringly obvious thing but it'll never be 'distortions' as we imagine them, it's more a 'pod people' lack of personality thing.

Like a much subtler version of listening to AI music :)

I'm quite happy with 24/96 as suitable overkill for anything I might want to hear or do. Neil Young went hard on the proposition that 192 was necessary. Sold the Ponoplayer, I had one but it died on me, battery failed eventually. It really did sound awesome beyond just about any other listening device I've ever heard…

amluto2• 19 days ago

One possibility (pure speculation) is a bad antialiasing filter. The Nyquist frequency at 44.1ksps is 22.05kHz, which is only ~10% above the audible band. This means that you need a rather sharp filter both when downmixing and when playing to avoid potentially audible aliasing into the audible band or attenuation within the audible band.

If you look at a site like audiosciencereview.com and pull up measurements of a DAC or ADC, you can find graphs of the antialiasing filter response. Some are great and some are not.

One could think of 16/44.1 PCM as being a codec that is potentially perfect but requiring some degree of care to encode and decode correctly.

dtgriscom• 20 days ago

I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats

High-dynamic-range material benefits from lots of bits.

javchz• 20 days ago

This. It may be a niche. But music that works with volume as part of the composition can be amazing.

But most music today has heavy compressors in the pipeline that kills dynamic range in favor of allowing you to hear almost even whispers, even in traffic or a city with ear pods.

But if you're from the first group, as you said it's more noticable the benefits of having better codecs and bit depth vs heavily compressed top billboard songs where even listening the master track from the studio, falls into diminishing returns.

dialogbox• 20 days ago

With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater.

I used to think the same. But I realized that downsampling hi-res music to 16/44.1 isn't a transparent conversion. So now I prefer the one downsampled to 16/44.1 by an expert in production env. I almost always download 16/44.1 flac files because of this.

raxxorraxor• 19 days ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48774112 <-- Here is a test. I would have said the same and I played all samples quite often. It is extremely subtle, but even with a cheap headset it is possible to hear differences, where the high quality version is just a little bit clearer.

IshKebab• 19 days ago

That's not really how down sampling works. You already have all the information with 48 kHz sampling.

Higher rate sampling is just like storing integers to 3 decimal places, or archiving an upscaled DVD.

I recommend you actually read the article. I vaguely recall they did it in video form too.

waffletower• 20 days ago

For typical listening (though humans can perceive bone-conducted vibrations up to 100 kHz or even 120 kHz) 16-bit-fixed/44.1kHz is a high-fidelity transport format. As a DSP researcher, I prefer 32-bit-float/44.1kHz as a transport format. I often upsample to 32-bit-float/188.2kHz or even 32-bit-float/192kHz for signal processing applications such as high-fidelity reverberation via direct and FFT convolution. While the author advocates for the transport to ear use case, I would argue that 24-bit/192kHz provides greater fidelity and resolution for sound processing. I found the pedantic arrogance of the author to be annoying. But yes, the sampling theory is an important consideration -- but so is the quality of the actual digital filters used in the DAC->ADC pipeline. They are much more forgiving and less lossy at 192kHz.

HelloUsername• 20 days ago

(2012) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310 316 comments

(2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8689231 424 comments

(2015) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10520639 228 comments

(2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127633 428 comments

(2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19318898 314 comments

ChrisArchitect• 20 days ago

(2012)

Some previous discussions:

2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34698427

2022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30138561

2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19318898

2017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127633

2015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10520639

2014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8689231

2012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310

rz2k2• 20 days ago

My good enough amplifier and DAC combo claims up to 24bit/192kHz, I use a cheap optical interface from my computer that claims up to 32bit/192kHz, and the streaming service I use serves most albums at 24bit/44.1kHz.

It would have cost the same for the entire stack to be 16bit/44.1kHz at every step, but with excessive resolution I can control the volume anywhere. The bits right before the analog conversion at the end are essentially the same whether I turn down the volume in the software player, the operating system, or the DAC/amplifier.

PcChip3• 20 days ago

you might want to see if your DAC re-clocks incoming optical, if not then it's relying on the cheap clock generator from your computer

rz2k2• 20 days ago

Some people have claimed to hear an improvement with an external clock on a Wiim Ultra, but I do not think it is possible to re-clock the WiiM Amp Ultra with an outboard clock.

When I play from the computer, I'm not sure whether it is using the clock on my Mac, the clock on the optical interface, or the WiiM's clock. However, I do not notice any difference in fidelity when I use the Qobuz software player on my Mac or use Qobuz Connect to allow the player to directly stream from the source, so either it isn't a difference that I can hear, or the WiiM's internal clock is used for both sources.

rasz2• 19 days ago

That cheap clock source is good enough for 16 GHz PCIE signaling, but Im sure you will be able to hear the jitter!

LarsAlereon• 20 days ago

The main benefit for me is that digital watermarking becomes completely inaudible with high-res audio, but I can sometimes clearly hear it in standard resolution.

dlcarrier• 20 days ago

There is a good reason to distribute it though, and compressed it doesn't really change the file size.

There's multiple YouTube channels that I listen to as podcasts, that are professionally created and the creators presume that exported audio works like studio audio, so what you end up with is really quiet audio that can't be turned up without pre-processing.

If we distributed audio the same way we work with it in a studio, we could forgo a lot of problems.

Also, the human ear does have enough dynamic range to make 24 bits worthwhile, though that much dynamic range is rarely used in recordings, and that high of a bit depth provides no benefits within a small dynamic range. A 192 kHz sample rate, on the other hand, is always useless.

sholladay• 20 days ago

Music producer here. High resolution audio is useful for editing and anywhere there might be downstream processing or format conversion that may or may not be high quality, let alone lossless. The article covers that pretty well.

However, the article claims that the final distribution doesn’t need to have a bit depth of more than 16. That does not match my experience. I can tell the difference between my renders that are 16 bit vs 24 bit. I cannot tell the difference between 44.1 kHz and higher sample rates, and that’s consistent with the math (Nyquist-Shannon), but bit depth is a different matter. Would be fun to participate in a double-blind test that includes my own tracks and others.

nok22kon9• 20 days ago

thermal noise allows about 18-22 bits of real precision at audio level voltages, so it's plausible that 16 bit is somewhat limiting

PaulDavisThe1st34• 20 days ago

16 bit may limit it on the input side, but the question is more about human hearing's sensitivity on the "output" side ...

guenthert4• 20 days ago

What? You still operate your ADCs without active cooling?

I'm writing in jest, but long time ago, -hp- used actively cooled FETs (not a very popular approach today as that caused problems with condensation and we have better FETs now).

PaulDavisThe1st34• 20 days ago

I can tell the difference between my renders that are 16 bit vs 24 bit.

established using double blind testing, I assume?

manoDev• 20 days ago

They make sense for so called audiophiles who don’t understand Nyqist frequency theory.

It’s like photographers who are confused about the difference between raw and bitmap (jpeg), videographers confused about the difference between linear raw vs log vs gamma encoded, etc.

Just because a data format with higher bit depth/sampling frequency/whatever exists for editing purposes, doesn’t mean it’s “better” or makes sense as a consumption format for a finished work.

casion• 20 days ago

They make sense for sound designers and derivative artists (e.g. sampling, which is a real artform).

Forms of manipulation bring inaudible content into the audible range.

Of course that doesn't mean audiophiles aren't being audiofooled by it, but there is legitimate usage.

eimrine2• 20 days ago

Nyquist describes harmonic frequency while music can contain non-harmonic oscillations, also Nyquist theory tells about the maximum possible frequency, but this same frequency can be placed in such a way with respect for quantization points that it becomes a silence.

I like your point about editing, because trying to mix too much tracks in 44100 or 48000 makes spontaneus click sounds which are not supposed to be here.

geraldmcboing6• 20 days ago

The OP is a bit off with their description of why pro audio engineers work in higher bit rates and sample rates. We use 24bit to preserve low level sounds eg reverb, breaths etc and use 32bit float when recording as the headroom is so massive clipping is not an issue (other than of course still neeing to avoid overloading microphones with max SPL - cleanly recorded distorted sound is still a fail). Unclipping 32bit float feels like voodoo - I did a test, recording fireworks & unclipping the 32bit float recordings.

I use microphones that can 'hear' up to 100kHz (Sanken CUX100K) and for film sound design playing 192kHz audio at half and quarter speed the results are very significant, and reveal there IS 'content' above human hearing. Irrelevant for general listening but very important for sound design.

PaulDavisThe1st34• 20 days ago

Have you ever actually checked the number of actual bits your ADC can use? Most 24 bit converters struggle to get to 18 bits.

Nobody uses 32 bit float for recording (to do so is just to capture at least 10 bits of noise, most of that being brownian); its strictly a format for mixing and processing. You don't get any more resolution from 32 bit floating point than you do from 24 bit integer formats, but the result of "clipping" is less dramatic, hence the appeal of the format.

While there is some evidence that non-auditory human sensory perception may be sensitive to ultrasonic acoustic waves, it's pretty weak right now, and somewhat in the "woo" zone. It may turn out to be significant, or it may not. I wouldn't base an audio production workflow that requires 4x the cpu power and 4x the disk space on such tentative claims, but you're welcome to.

nullc10• 20 days ago

Nobody uses 32 bit float for recording

Yes they do, almost all high end field recorders used for film work are 32-bits now and have been for much of the last decade, often with some fancy preamp integration so that there is no expertise required for gain staging the recording. (I believe the implementations use a second matched 24bit ADC with 48 dB less gain in front of it).

The result obviously doesn't have a noise floor which is lower (as the noise of a room temperature _resistor_ gets in the way of that even at the 24-bit level) but they have more dynamic range so that your recording isn't ruined by hard clipping some unexpected loud sound.

It's a big improvement for practical usage, and also likely does improve SNR somewhat because you can run higher gains without as much fear that you'll ruin the recording. The reason it would pay off is that the SNR loss you get from splitting the signal is easily smaller than the SNR loss you would get from gain reduction to avoid clipping.

(maybe... capsule self noise is also limiting... at these levels, and usually people aren't using microphones designed for the lowest possible self noise unless they're doing something special)

geraldmcboing6• 20 days ago

Dude I've been doing sound design on films using these techniques for years. There is zero 'woo' involved, it is ALL practical evidence based use. I've been using 32bit float multitrack field recorder by Sound Devices MixPre10-II professionally for many years now. The recorder has three preamps per mic input, each gain staged to provide optimum signal to the 32bit float AD. Read this to clarify your thinking: https://www.sounddevices.com/32-bit-float-files-explained/

Surely you understand a recording made at 48kHz has a max freq response of 24kHz and played at half speed that max freq is 12kHz and at quarter speed only 6kHz. You can very clearly hear the filter cut off due to Nyquist. Record at 192kHz with mics capable of 100kHz capture and when played at quarter speed, the sound is full spectrum because there is no truncated frequency response. And when I load a 192kHz recording to izotope RX I can literallu see the harmonics going up to 96kHz. (not with every sound of course)

I repeat, i am not talking about 'normal' listening. I am talking about an industruy you have no knowledge or lived experience with, so spare me the incorrect claims about what can & cant be heard.

geraldmcboing6• 20 days ago

"Nobody uses 32 bit float for recording" - you are just displaying total ignorance here.

The_President• 18 days ago

Note to readers, this commentary brought to you by a code writer for Ardour. Unfortunately I was unable to view any of the about information for that program, because it crashed immediately.

hgoel• 20 days ago

I still insist on the higher bitrate stuff. I don't expect to notice the difference, I just think that music where the artists have bothered to prepare those files is probably recorded with more care than otherwise. I'm not generally listening to big artists where this can just be expected, and while I don't have any evidence to support my belief, I choose to continue believing it.

I'm not interested in finetuning everything in my life for efficiency.

codedokode2• 20 days ago

192 kHz vs 48 kHz can make a difference if you slow down the audio. If you pitch shift down 2 octaves, the ultrasonic range 20-80 kHz turns into 5-20 kHz and there will be large difference between 192 kHz and 48 kHz sources. However, I do not know if it would sound good because the mixing engineer cannot hear those frequencies and mix them properly, or the microphone might not catch it or some of the material could be recorded with lower quality.

Also, sadly consumers are getting used to low quality audio nowadays - they often listen to lossly compressed audio on social media (sometimes decompressed and re-compressed several times) which is then re-compressed to send to bluetooth headphones, or played back on an awful smartphone speakers. Streaming services also use compressed audio.

ycui7• 20 days ago

24-bit was created because microphone want to record large dynamic range without gain switching circuit.

96kHz was created to better reproduce 20kHz high frequency, so the digital noise shaping filter does not need to be super sharp right at the Nyquist frequency.

Both were introduced for a sound technical reason. beyond that, most are marketing non-sense to cheat consumers.

ryankrage772• 20 days ago

I decided to test for myself, downloaded Lacinato ABX and tested a 32-bit 352.8Khz flac I had lying around, to the same file downsampled to 16-bit 44.1KHz. I couldn't tell any difference. Then I tried 192k mp3... still no difference. Couldn't reliably differentiate 128 or 64kbps mp3 either. I had to go down to 32k before I could be certain which was which, and even then I still had to listen carefully. Think I need to get my ears checked. I know I can't hear much above 15-16KHz but I didn't think it was this bad.

DiabloD32• 20 days ago

Yeaaaaaaaaaahhhh.... you might be a tiny bit deaf.

OTOH, we know nothing of your audio equipment nor how its setup.

ryankrage772• 20 days ago

HiFiMan Sundara headphones, focusrite scarlett 2i2 interface. Although, it turns out the Scarlett is set to 48KHz anyway, and I can't seem to change it easily under linux. Not that it seems to matter for my ears, lol.

EDIT: Did some more ABX testing with a CD-quality track that I'm much more familiar with ('Introduction' from the Mirrors Edge soundtrack, which has been my go-to for comparing audio gear for the last decade). I could sometimes distinguish 128k mp3 this time, though interestingly, I got it consistently wrong rather than right. For some reason the compressed version seems to be my preference. Dropping to 96k mp3, I got it right 100% of the time - though only because there was a very noticeable difference in the stereo positioning of the first sound, rather than a difference in the quality of the sound. I think if it were mono I would still be unable to tell.

jnaina• 20 days ago

same here. seems all the years of q-tip use is saving me money by not needing to buy expensive Hi-End Audio gear.

amanaplanacanal• 20 days ago

15khz is about my upper limit. Too many loud concerts back in the 70s and 80s without hearing protection.

kstenerud• 20 days ago

What's really interesting to do with all of these people arguing over audio formats (as always happens on HN) is to point a frontier model at this thread.

In a nutshell: nullc, rahimnathwani, zamadatix and vor_ know their shit, and geraldmcboing and PaulDavis are technicially correct but talking past each other. speak_on and TheOtherHobbes are confidently wrong.

And also: 44.1 kHz captures the entire human audible spectrum with room to spare, and 16-bit already goes beyond anything useful for listening. The higher resolution / sample size format is useful for production or archival purposes only.

The two main reasons why you hear a difference between the two formats: (1) it's likely a different master, (2) tiny gain differences in the signal (salesmen use this trick, but it's also easy to do it by mistake).

UltraSane• 20 days ago

The only real advantage it has is being able to re-encode it into any lossy format you want. With modern storage capacity the size isn't much of an issue.

BoingBoomTschak• 20 days ago

No mention of Toole? Obligatory considering the subject, even if it's about acoustics and not digital audio:

https://www.routledge.com/Sound-Reproduction-The-Acoustics-a...

And a talk by the author covering some of the material for those who prefer that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM

saidnooneever• 20 days ago

the make sense for DJs and producers. preferably WAV full quality.

in DSP it matters a lot, so if mixing digitally or producting remixes etc. its useful to have more and larger samples to work with

24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

Related Stories