4 ms·

> ...there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48.... from "24/192 Music Dow

> ...there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48.... from "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" (2012) [1] [1] https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

hamstergene 3y ago
This could be a useful disclaimer, to say "we are talking about recording and processing and NOT about playback". Audiophiles demand streaming services to provide 192/24 because they see the music being originally mastered at high sample rates, and from that conclude that listening to 48/16 is a loss of "original recorded quality". I can totally envision audiophiles picking up the Wescott's article and using it as "scientific" argument to distribute more Hi-Res music, and some half-technical manager buying that. They won't even read it.
shin_lao 3y ago
High sample rate isn't useful for playback, but 24-bit is great for nuance in low intensity sound.
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  so for stuff which didn't properly use the dynamic range of the standard codecs? Are human ears even capable of hearing 24 bits of dynamic range?
  - FabHK 3y ago
    Rule of thumb: We know that 2^10 ≈ 10^3, so 2^24 ≈ 10^(3/10*24) = 10^7.2. This 7.2 is about amplitude, but what we hear is power which is quadratic in amplitude, so take a factor of 2, and you're talking 14.4 bel, or 144 decibel for 24 bit (and 2/3 of that, 96 db, for 16 bit). (In reality it's a bit more complicated, but that's a good rough guide, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth#Quantization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth#Quantization)
- throwaway0665 3y ago
  The noise floor of 16-bit music is imperceptible so for mastered music at least 24-bits is useless. Both a higher sample rate and bit depth can be useful for recording purposes - provided the room is perfectly treated and there are no external sources of noise.

hamstergene 3y ago

This could be a useful disclaimer, to say "we are talking about recording and processing and NOT about playback". Audiophiles demand streaming services to provide 192/24 because they see the music being originally mastered at high sample rates, and from that conclude that listening to 48/16 is a loss of "original recorded quality". I can totally envision audiophiles picking up the Wescott's article and using it as "scientific" argument to distribute more Hi-Res music, and some half-technical manager buying that. They won't even read it.

shin_lao 3y ago

High sample rate isn't useful for playback, but 24-bit is great for nuance in low intensity sound.

KeplerBoy 3y ago
so for stuff which didn't properly use the dynamic range of the standard codecs? Are human ears even capable of hearing 24 bits of dynamic range?
- FabHK 3y ago
  Rule of thumb: We know that 2^10 ≈ 10^3, so 2^24 ≈ 10^(3/10*24) = 10^7.2. This 7.2 is about amplitude, but what we hear is power which is quadratic in amplitude, so take a factor of 2, and you're talking 14.4 bel, or 144 decibel for 24 bit (and 2/3 of that, 96 db, for 16 bit). (In reality it's a bit more complicated, but that's a good rough guide, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth#Quantization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth#Quantization)
throwaway0665 3y ago
The noise floor of 16-bit music is imperceptible so for mastered music at least 24-bits is useless. Both a higher sample rate and bit depth can be useful for recording purposes - provided the room is perfectly treated and there are no external sources of noise.