5 ms·

It has nothing to do with the 24/192 values themselves, but rather the treatment given to the recording during the mastering. Because 24/192 and SACD are "audio

It has nothing to do with the 24/192 values themselves, but rather the treatment given to the recording during the mastering. Because 24/192 and SACD are "audiophile formats", the engineers who master the recordings expect them to be listened to in serious listening environments that are relatively noise-insulated so that very soft parts can be heard clearly, and there are no complaining neighbours so the loud parts can really blast. Consequently, an ample dynamic range is preserved. "Remastered" reissues on the other formats – CD or lower-bitrate downloads – are nowadays expected to be listened to through cheap earbuds or speakers and perhaps in noisy urban environments. So, the engineer applies "loudness wars" treatment, compressing their dynamic range so the listener can still hear the quiet parts even with all the noise around them.

aw3c2 9y ago
You are proving the point. Treating the audio well, not giving in to the loudness, has only correlation with 24/192 releases (if you say so), there is no causation.
- Mediterraneo10 9y ago
  Sure, there is no causation of "higher bitrate necessarily makes for better sound", but the correlation of "higher bitrate format just happens to have better mastering" is often strong enough to make these the go-to formats. There are a large number of classic recordings that are difficult to obtain in the digital era without harsh compression being applied to them, so the 24/192 or SACD release is the most convenient way of hearing them with decent dynamic range.
- traviscj 9y ago
  In other words, it is not a technical advantage, but a social/political one.
- JohnBooty 9y ago
  Right, absolutely. 16 bit samples give 100db+ of perceived dynamic range, more than would ever be needed. The other poster is not saying otherwise, though. They're just saying that "hi-def" formats, while technically unnecessary for end-user listening, are often the only way to obtain a decently-mastered recording. There's no technical reason for things to be that way. But that's how things are. It's sort of like buying a new car. You want the more powerful engine? Well then you also have to buy the package with heated seats, the moonroof, and the fog lights. There's no technical reason for it, but that's the only way they'll sell it to you.
  - ladzoppelin 9y ago
    But there is a technical reason for them as the tools used to master/make music work better at the higher formats. Its not "superstition" its digital audio.
    - aw3c2 9y ago
      Yes, but this is about Music Downloads.
    - JohnBooty 9y ago
      Of course. That's why I specifically said "end-user listening." It's also what this entire discussion's about. Of course formats above 44.1/16 are useful for professional work; nobody's ever said otherwise. Just like graphics professionals work with high-res images and lossless formats even if the end product is a .jpg on a web page.
Steve44 9y ago
> It has nothing to do with the 24/192 values themselves, but rather the treatment given to the recording during the mastering I noticed a similar thing with TV a few years ago. Despite watching a standard def. channel on a SD TV some programmes had a very noticeably better image quality. I think these had been shot and edited in HD and although the 'last mile' was still in SD there had been less degradation in the processing so the final picture was much better.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  It’s the same reason downsampling 4K to 1080p looks better than shooting in 1080p.
titzer 9y ago
With the higher 24 bit resolution, would it not be possible for someone to "decompress" the dynamic range with less distortion than 16 bit?
- emerged 9y ago
  No, compression can't be undone. It destroys information. Especially with a limiter. The mastering chain will have typically done other things to the signal as well.
hashmal 9y ago
Thanks for the clarification, I kinda agree. Then, 24/192 is mostly a "weak signal" to help you estimate if the audio was treated with care.
anentropic 9y ago
this is roughly what the "Mastered for iTunes" badge means on iTunes downloads the mastering engineer has to be approved and there are some minimum dynamic range standards also 24 bit (but not 192khz) master files have to be supplied reportedly some of the streaming services (Spotify, YouTube) are now applying some 'loudness normalisation' which will bring some of the bad loud masters into line (it won't restore their dynamic range but will make them similar loudness to other tracks) the loudness wars were never about what's good for listeners, but rather a competition for tracks to sound louder than other people's tracks when played consecutively on radio or in your music player
- rplst8 9y ago
  Mastering for "high fidelity" 24-bit audio on iTunes is an oxymoron. The compression algorithms used for AAC and MP3 are going to the worsen the sound quality in a manner that renders the extended dynamic range of 24-bit audio is useless.
  - anentropic 9y ago
    even on mp3s where the bitrate is low enough to hear some compression artefacts you would still be able to perceive the difference in dynamic range and the iTunes files are 256 kbps AACs, you can't hear the compression remember that 'compression' in this context is data compression and not audio compression (which acts directly on the dynamic range of the source)
    - rplst8 9y ago
      > the iTunes files are 256 kbps AACs, you can't hear the compression I can most certainly hear the compression when compared with CD digital audio. I fully understand the difference between data compression and dynamic range (not audio) compression. What I'm saying is, lossy data compressed audio formats are already compromised enough to rule it out as a medium for audiophile use. Worrying about the dynamic range at that point is moot. It's going to be played on tiny, terrible sounding speakers.

aw3c2 9y ago

You are proving the point. Treating the audio well, not giving in to the loudness, has only correlation with 24/192 releases (if you say so), there is no causation.

Mediterraneo10 9y ago
Sure, there is no causation of "higher bitrate necessarily makes for better sound", but the correlation of "higher bitrate format just happens to have better mastering" is often strong enough to make these the go-to formats. There are a large number of classic recordings that are difficult to obtain in the digital era without harsh compression being applied to them, so the 24/192 or SACD release is the most convenient way of hearing them with decent dynamic range.
traviscj 9y ago
In other words, it is not a technical advantage, but a social/political one.
JohnBooty 9y ago
Right, absolutely. 16 bit samples give 100db+ of perceived dynamic range, more than would ever be needed. The other poster is not saying otherwise, though. They're just saying that "hi-def" formats, while technically unnecessary for end-user listening, are often the only way to obtain a decently-mastered recording. There's no technical reason for things to be that way. But that's how things are. It's sort of like buying a new car. You want the more powerful engine? Well then you also have to buy the package with heated seats, the moonroof, and the fog lights. There's no technical reason for it, but that's the only way they'll sell it to you.
- ladzoppelin 9y ago
  But there is a technical reason for them as the tools used to master/make music work better at the higher formats. Its not "superstition" its digital audio.
  - aw3c2 9y ago
    Yes, but this is about Music Downloads.
  - JohnBooty 9y ago
    Of course. That's why I specifically said "end-user listening." It's also what this entire discussion's about. Of course formats above 44.1/16 are useful for professional work; nobody's ever said otherwise. Just like graphics professionals work with high-res images and lossless formats even if the end product is a .jpg on a web page.

Steve44 9y ago

> It has nothing to do with the 24/192 values themselves, but rather the treatment given to the recording during the mastering I noticed a similar thing with TV a few years ago. Despite watching a standard def. channel on a SD TV some programmes had a very noticeably better image quality. I think these had been shot and edited in HD and although the 'last mile' was still in SD there had been less degradation in the processing so the final picture was much better.

colejohnson66 9y ago
It’s the same reason downsampling 4K to 1080p looks better than shooting in 1080p.

titzer 9y ago

With the higher 24 bit resolution, would it not be possible for someone to "decompress" the dynamic range with less distortion than 16 bit?

emerged 9y ago
No, compression can't be undone. It destroys information. Especially with a limiter. The mastering chain will have typically done other things to the signal as well.

hashmal 9y ago

Thanks for the clarification, I kinda agree. Then, 24/192 is mostly a "weak signal" to help you estimate if the audio was treated with care.

anentropic 9y ago

this is roughly what the "Mastered for iTunes" badge means on iTunes downloads the mastering engineer has to be approved and there are some minimum dynamic range standards also 24 bit (but not 192khz) master files have to be supplied reportedly some of the streaming services (Spotify, YouTube) are now applying some 'loudness normalisation' which will bring some of the bad loud masters into line (it won't restore their dynamic range but will make them similar loudness to other tracks) the loudness wars were never about what's good for listeners, but rather a competition for tracks to sound louder than other people's tracks when played consecutively on radio or in your music player

rplst8 9y ago
Mastering for "high fidelity" 24-bit audio on iTunes is an oxymoron. The compression algorithms used for AAC and MP3 are going to the worsen the sound quality in a manner that renders the extended dynamic range of 24-bit audio is useless.
- anentropic 9y ago
  even on mp3s where the bitrate is low enough to hear some compression artefacts you would still be able to perceive the difference in dynamic range and the iTunes files are 256 kbps AACs, you can't hear the compression remember that 'compression' in this context is data compression and not audio compression (which acts directly on the dynamic range of the source)
  - rplst8 9y ago
    > the iTunes files are 256 kbps AACs, you can't hear the compression I can most certainly hear the compression when compared with CD digital audio. I fully understand the difference between data compression and dynamic range (not audio) compression. What I'm saying is, lossy data compressed audio formats are already compromised enough to rule it out as a medium for audiophile use. Worrying about the dynamic range at that point is moot. It's going to be played on tiny, terrible sounding speakers.