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

dijit

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

viccis

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.

lokar

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

trashcluster

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

metalman

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.

Tsarp

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.

dist-epoch

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"

cozzyd

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

PcChip

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

speak_on

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.

haunter

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! /s

0l

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

jerf

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

z_open

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

rahimnathwani

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

Arodex

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.

WarmWash

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

me551ah

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

glimshe

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!