6 ms·

I can't hear a difference between 96khz/44khz in it's raw form. However, I can tell the difference from effects in audio mixing. The extra detail can really mak

by earlz 11y ago

I can't hear a difference between 96khz/44khz in it's raw form. However, I can tell the difference from effects in audio mixing. The extra detail can really make a difference in how well an audio effect VST works. I have a 96khz/24bit interface that I use and ATH-M30X headphones, and I can tell a difference between at least some 24bit FLAC files and 16bit highest-quality-possible MP3s. I was mixing my own music and the difference was quite obvious to me. The notable thing was that drum cymbals seemed to have a bit less sizzle and such. Now that being said, if I hadn't heard the song a million times in it's lossless form from trying to mix it, I probably wouldn't have noticed, and even then it didn't actually affect my "experience". I'm one of those guys that downloads vinyl rips as well, but I do that mostly just to experience the alternative mastering, not that I think it's higher quality or anything. (though I have heard a terrible loudness-war CD master that sounded great on vinyl with a different master)

pizza234 11y ago
Compressed formats are not really relevant to considerations about the bit depth itself. Besides, mp3 [audio] compressions have difficulty in handling specific samples, or type of samples (eg. sharp attacks), and they may manifest artifacts independently of the bitrate; MP3, AFAIK, also has a ceiling of 320 kbps within the standard specification, which certainly doesn't help. Secondly, I'm not sure if you process further the MP3s (when you refer to mixing), but if you do, you're definitely going to make noticeable, artifacts which weren't so in the unprocessed MP3 form.
- earlz 11y ago
  I mean, I'm just some hobbyist, but my understanding is everyone renders to lossless and then converts that to the various MP3/AAC formats, never changing anything solely because of the final compressed format.
- hatsunearu 11y ago
  Old thread, but I thought I made it clear that I wasn't talking about data compression, but rather dynamic range compression.
ska 11y ago
The article is pretty clear about this too - higher bitdepths and sampling rates can be quite useful in mixing and recording situations. They're pointless for playback.
- niels_olson 11y ago
  > higher bitdepths and sampling rates can be quite useful in mixing That is really the central issue. It's much like imaging since the time of Ansel Adams: the sensor can capture more dynamic range than the human eye can experience. The producer may have use for that range when editing, but the audience will never know what was -- may have been -- missed. And we're not talking about limits of reproduction. We're talking about the human sensors both instantaneous and absolute upper and lower bounds.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > That is really the central issue. It's much like imaging since the time of Ansel Adams: the sensor can capture more dynamic range than the human eye can experience. That's not really true. Dynamic range refers to the difference between the biggest value that isn't clipped and the smallest value that isn't rounded to zero. The human eye is a logarithmic detector, cameras are linear. The only reason HDR is a thing is because cameras DON'T have enough dynamic range. http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/21579/how-does-the-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye-compare-to-that-of-digital-cameras http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/21579/how-does-the-...
    - niels_olson 11y ago
      You're thinking about absolute range of a human system. Yes, I can look into shadows and my iris will imperceptibly dilate. Similarly, the stapedius muscle can dampen input to the oval window. So you can appreciate a wide dynamic range. But instantaneously, your retina is only good for about 7-8 EV steps. Modern imaging sensors deliver well over 10 EV, some deliver more than 14. Depending on which format you save to, you could be throwing away half the information! So, much like a artist should record 24/192, a photographer should be saving to RAW. But no monitor or film or the human eye will ever capture all that range in one instant. So, especially for temporal media, like audio and video, that space can be scoped down in the interest of space saving without any perceptible loss.
mmastrac 11y ago
MP3's perceptual model can still throw away information at the highest quality settings. FLAC doesn't throw away anything. It's possible you are just hearing the difference between codecs. You'd have a fairer comparison with 24-bit vs 16-bit FLAC.
malandrew 11y ago
For those interesting in different versions of an album where it was mastered by a different audio engineer, you should check out the Steve Hoffman forums: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/ http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  Or even the same engineer years later.
radicalbyte 11y ago
Cymbals are the biggest tell for compressed music. Even with crappy speakers they sound very strange.
- copperx 11y ago
  SiruisXM satellite radio is probably the worst offender. Makes music unlistenable to me. Even 128Kbps MP3s render cymbals better.
shams93 11y ago
That's your processing overhead, you can mess with the sound a lot more at 96k before you hear audio issues. The difference you hear is the difference between flac's lossless format and mp3's lossy format it has nothing to do with 16 bit versus 24 bit.
nullc 11y ago
" can tell the difference from effects in audio mixing." Yes, non-linear effects can be sample rate sensitive. However-- this really means that their internal model is aliasing and not faithfully simulating an infinite sample rate system. In an ideal world, effect that needed more sample rate would internally upsample/downsample (or be constructed in a way that they didn't need to). Then they would behave consistently across rates; though doing this would waste cpu cycles. In any case, the article is all about distribution. Having excess rate in mastering is cheap and harmless, and-- because of these reasons, can be practically pretty useful.

by earlz 11y ago

pizza234 11y ago

Compressed formats are not really relevant to considerations about the bit depth itself. Besides, mp3 [audio] compressions have difficulty in handling specific samples, or type of samples (eg. sharp attacks), and they may manifest artifacts independently of the bitrate; MP3, AFAIK, also has a ceiling of 320 kbps within the standard specification, which certainly doesn't help. Secondly, I'm not sure if you process further the MP3s (when you refer to mixing), but if you do, you're definitely going to make noticeable, artifacts which weren't so in the unprocessed MP3 form.

earlz 11y ago
I mean, I'm just some hobbyist, but my understanding is everyone renders to lossless and then converts that to the various MP3/AAC formats, never changing anything solely because of the final compressed format.
hatsunearu 11y ago
Old thread, but I thought I made it clear that I wasn't talking about data compression, but rather dynamic range compression.

ska 11y ago

The article is pretty clear about this too - higher bitdepths and sampling rates can be quite useful in mixing and recording situations. They're pointless for playback.

niels_olson 11y ago
> higher bitdepths and sampling rates can be quite useful in mixing That is really the central issue. It's much like imaging since the time of Ansel Adams: the sensor can capture more dynamic range than the human eye can experience. The producer may have use for that range when editing, but the audience will never know what was -- may have been -- missed. And we're not talking about limits of reproduction. We're talking about the human sensors both instantaneous and absolute upper and lower bounds.
- msandford 11y ago
  > That is really the central issue. It's much like imaging since the time of Ansel Adams: the sensor can capture more dynamic range than the human eye can experience. That's not really true. Dynamic range refers to the difference between the biggest value that isn't clipped and the smallest value that isn't rounded to zero. The human eye is a logarithmic detector, cameras are linear. The only reason HDR is a thing is because cameras DON'T have enough dynamic range. http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/21579/how-does-the-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye-compare-to-that-of-digital-cameras http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/21579/how-does-the-...
  - niels_olson 11y ago
    You're thinking about absolute range of a human system. Yes, I can look into shadows and my iris will imperceptibly dilate. Similarly, the stapedius muscle can dampen input to the oval window. So you can appreciate a wide dynamic range. But instantaneously, your retina is only good for about 7-8 EV steps. Modern imaging sensors deliver well over 10 EV, some deliver more than 14. Depending on which format you save to, you could be throwing away half the information! So, much like a artist should record 24/192, a photographer should be saving to RAW. But no monitor or film or the human eye will ever capture all that range in one instant. So, especially for temporal media, like audio and video, that space can be scoped down in the interest of space saving without any perceptible loss.

mmastrac 11y ago

MP3's perceptual model can still throw away information at the highest quality settings. FLAC doesn't throw away anything. It's possible you are just hearing the difference between codecs. You'd have a fairer comparison with 24-bit vs 16-bit FLAC.

malandrew 11y ago

For those interesting in different versions of an album where it was mastered by a different audio engineer, you should check out the Steve Hoffman forums: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/ http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/

thrownaway2424 11y ago
Or even the same engineer years later.

radicalbyte 11y ago

Cymbals are the biggest tell for compressed music. Even with crappy speakers they sound very strange.

copperx 11y ago
SiruisXM satellite radio is probably the worst offender. Makes music unlistenable to me. Even 128Kbps MP3s render cymbals better.

shams93 11y ago

That's your processing overhead, you can mess with the sound a lot more at 96k before you hear audio issues. The difference you hear is the difference between flac's lossless format and mp3's lossy format it has nothing to do with 16 bit versus 24 bit.

nullc 11y ago

" can tell the difference from effects in audio mixing." Yes, non-linear effects can be sample rate sensitive. However-- this really means that their internal model is aliasing and not faithfully simulating an infinite sample rate system. In an ideal world, effect that needed more sample rate would internally upsample/downsample (or be constructed in a way that they didn't need to). Then they would behave consistently across rates; though doing this would waste cpu cycles. In any case, the article is all about distribution. Having excess rate in mastering is cheap and harmless, and-- because of these reasons, can be practically pretty useful.