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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

(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

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

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!

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

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

@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

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.

huh...

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

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"

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.

(2012)

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

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.

(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

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

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

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.

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.

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