12 ms·

192kHz/24 bit, what a wonderful piece of snakeoil... What do they actually record with this frequency, bats talking to each other about classical music?

by lynx23 4y ago

gregwebs 4y ago
It’s not that high- some music streams with higher sampling frequencies and bit depths. The main snake oil phenomenon that goes on is up sampling cd quality recordings to these levels. That doesn’t accomplish much other than confusion. Certainly the majority of systems out there are not high end enough to appreciate higher quality recordings unless they are wired headphones (a quality setup there doesn’t cost too much).
- wwalexander 4y ago
  There is no system high-end enough to allow your ears to magically hear 96kHz, or even 48kHz. Unless you’re very young with golden ears it’s extremely doubtful that you can hear a 24kHz tone. It is absolutely snake oil. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html is an overview by the creator of Ogg and Vorbis explaining exactly, scientifically, why these inflated sampling rates are snake oil. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM is a longer video by the same person that debunks a lot of digital audio myths.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gregwebs 4y ago
    Thanks, I really appreciate those references. There are still subtleties in a real world setup that may be missed in those explanations though. A bit depth of 16 would be enough if everything in the system from recording to speaker was working properly. But for example with digital volume control there is effectively a loss of bit depth. Starting with 24 bits might help here. This isn't necessary if you control the volume in the DAC and the DAC has a larger bit depth, but this doesn't always correspond to what exists and is convenient in every setup. https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeControl.htm https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeContr...
    - gregwebs 4y ago
      On the sampling side there is quality scientific evidence that cd level sampling can lead to audible ringing. The theory here in that more room is needed for a gentler rolloff in filtering. 192 kHz is overkill but this might suggest that 96 makes sense. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/ https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/h...
CharlesW 4y ago
> 192kHz/24 bit, what a wonderful piece of snakeoil… I agree, it really hertz to see Apple pandering to non-technical audiophiles like this. I blame Neil Young. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service) > What do they actually record with this frequency, bats talking to each other about classical music? I lol'd.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HeavyFeather 4y ago
That number is common in professional contexts, Apple is just publishing the highest “quality” available. Whether this is useful is up to the listener, who can just as well decide to listen to 192kbps AAC instead. In a world where videos and photos are still shared at laughable resolutions, let’s not scorn decisions to preserve media in the highest possible quality.
biftek 4y ago
A higher bit rate lets you digitally process audio without introducing artifacts. It's very common to record, mix, and master audio at 192/24 and even oversample well above 192k. It has nothing to do with snake oil or hearing things above 22k it's about not introducing aliasing and other digital artifacts, and on highly dynamic content like classical can definitely be heard in the audible spectrum.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Wouldn't you get more artifacts downsampling a 192k mix to AAC as opposed to just using an AAC-optimised file from the start?
- lynx23 4y ago
  I am all for 24 bit to get more dynamic range. But I am still unconvinced that anything above 48kHz makes a difference for the final consumer.
d3nj4l 4y ago
You’re mixing up sampling rate/depth and sound frequency.
- rossy 4y ago
  The idea that there's a noticeable benefit to having a sample rate higher than twice the highest frequency is the snake oil here. Many audiophiles seem to believe this but it's not supported by the mainstream understanding of digital signal processing.
- lynx23 4y ago
  Am I? They say 192kHz/24 bit, followed by the word lossless... Trust me, I am not confusing things, but they do. Here is the quote: > up to 192kHz/24-bit Hi-Res Lossless If this makes sense in your world, kudos!
  - highhedgehog 4y ago
    It means that the audio is sampled at 192khz and each sample is 24bit, not that the audio is recorded with hardware capable of recording sounds up to 192KHz
    - lynx23 4y ago
      I know about nyquest, do you? 192kHz sampling rate means the highest tone representable is 96kHz, which is roughly 80kHz more then what the average human can actually (still) perceive. For audio-postprocessing, I might be convinced that there is a benefit of raising the sampling frequency that high, but for pure hi-fi consumers? No way. This is snakeoil.
      - tzs 4y ago
        That's an unconvincing argument because the presence of ultrasonic sounds can affect human perception. It is just not perceptible via the exact same mechanism that ordinary sound is. The argument you should be going with is that the speakers and headphones that people will be playing the music on doesn't do ultrasonic sound.

192kHz/24 bit, what a wonderful piece of snakeoil... What do they actually record with this frequency, bats talking to each other about classical music?

by lynx23 4y ago

192kHz/24 bit, what a wonderful piece of snakeoil... What do they actually record with this frequency, bats talking to each other about classical music?

gregwebs 4y ago

It’s not that high- some music streams with higher sampling frequencies and bit depths. The main snake oil phenomenon that goes on is up sampling cd quality recordings to these levels. That doesn’t accomplish much other than confusion. Certainly the majority of systems out there are not high end enough to appreciate higher quality recordings unless they are wired headphones (a quality setup there doesn’t cost too much).

wwalexander 4y ago
There is no system high-end enough to allow your ears to magically hear 96kHz, or even 48kHz. Unless you’re very young with golden ears it’s extremely doubtful that you can hear a 24kHz tone. It is absolutely snake oil. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html is an overview by the creator of Ogg and Vorbis explaining exactly, scientifically, why these inflated sampling rates are snake oil. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM is a longer video by the same person that debunks a lot of digital audio myths.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gregwebs 4y ago
  Thanks, I really appreciate those references. There are still subtleties in a real world setup that may be missed in those explanations though. A bit depth of 16 would be enough if everything in the system from recording to speaker was working properly. But for example with digital volume control there is effectively a loss of bit depth. Starting with 24 bits might help here. This isn't necessary if you control the volume in the DAC and the DAC has a larger bit depth, but this doesn't always correspond to what exists and is convenient in every setup. https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeControl.htm https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeContr...
  - gregwebs 4y ago
    On the sampling side there is quality scientific evidence that cd level sampling can lead to audible ringing. The theory here in that more room is needed for a gentler rolloff in filtering. 192 kHz is overkill but this might suggest that 96 makes sense. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/ https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/h...

CharlesW 4y ago

> 192kHz/24 bit, what a wonderful piece of snakeoil… I agree, it really hertz to see Apple pandering to non-technical audiophiles like this. I blame Neil Young. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service) > What do they actually record with this frequency, bats talking to each other about classical music? I lol'd.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

HeavyFeather 4y ago

That number is common in professional contexts, Apple is just publishing the highest “quality” available. Whether this is useful is up to the listener, who can just as well decide to listen to 192kbps AAC instead. In a world where videos and photos are still shared at laughable resolutions, let’s not scorn decisions to preserve media in the highest possible quality.

biftek 4y ago

A higher bit rate lets you digitally process audio without introducing artifacts. It's very common to record, mix, and master audio at 192/24 and even oversample well above 192k. It has nothing to do with snake oil or hearing things above 22k it's about not introducing aliasing and other digital artifacts, and on highly dynamic content like classical can definitely be heard in the audible spectrum.

smoldesu 4y ago
Wouldn't you get more artifacts downsampling a 192k mix to AAC as opposed to just using an AAC-optimised file from the start?
lynx23 4y ago
I am all for 24 bit to get more dynamic range. But I am still unconvinced that anything above 48kHz makes a difference for the final consumer.

d3nj4l 4y ago

You’re mixing up sampling rate/depth and sound frequency.

rossy 4y ago
The idea that there's a noticeable benefit to having a sample rate higher than twice the highest frequency is the snake oil here. Many audiophiles seem to believe this but it's not supported by the mainstream understanding of digital signal processing.
lynx23 4y ago
Am I? They say 192kHz/24 bit, followed by the word lossless... Trust me, I am not confusing things, but they do. Here is the quote: > up to 192kHz/24-bit Hi-Res Lossless If this makes sense in your world, kudos!
- highhedgehog 4y ago
  It means that the audio is sampled at 192khz and each sample is 24bit, not that the audio is recorded with hardware capable of recording sounds up to 192KHz
  - lynx23 4y ago
    I know about nyquest, do you? 192kHz sampling rate means the highest tone representable is 96kHz, which is roughly 80kHz more then what the average human can actually (still) perceive. For audio-postprocessing, I might be convinced that there is a benefit of raising the sampling frequency that high, but for pure hi-fi consumers? No way. This is snakeoil.
    - tzs 4y ago
      That's an unconvincing argument because the presence of ultrasonic sounds can affect human perception. It is just not perceptible via the exact same mechanism that ordinary sound is. The argument you should be going with is that the speakers and headphones that people will be playing the music on doesn't do ultrasonic sound.