3 ms·

24 [bit] * 192 [kHz] = 4.608 [Mbps]. Maybe not sensible to do so, but many people could have Discord calls in uncompressed "high-res" WAV. It's crazy that there

24 [bit] * 192 [kHz] = 4.608 [Mbps]. Maybe not sensible to do so, but many people could have Discord calls in uncompressed "high-res" WAV. It's crazy that there aren't even 16bit/44.1k modes in most voice call apps.

OhMeadhbh 2y ago
The economics probably aren't that great to send uncompressed voice into the data center. If you have a business that gets charged XX cents (or more likely .00XX cents) per GB of traffic and you can cut that in half by using compression... I think people will opt to use compression.
smittywerben 2y ago
You have an eye for quality. They should make an Apple voice dongle for that. Inside joke. Signing off.
Synaesthesia 2y ago
Speech compresses really well, with modern techniques you can get it down a lot. The big issue with analogue landline phone calls is the audio bandwidth is so limited. It's not the full frequency spectrum, most of it it cut off.
- cosmotic 2y ago
  For some context, wikipedia has a good table and diagram of codecs that do well at low bitrates, many of which are very old (G.722 from the late 1988, Speex from 2003, Opus from 2012 for a few examples) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_coding_formats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_coding_for... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)#Quality_comparison_and_low-latency_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)#Quality_co...
- numpad0 2y ago
  I have no problems with Opus or mp3 at low bitrate, in the same way I have no problems with microwaved food. I just think it's crazy that no one is doing 4Mbps audio while we're routinely streaming 20Mbps video as cheap distractions.
  - piperswe 2y ago
    4Mbps audio doesn't really make sense when you can just about perfectly replicate any human-audible sound in ~1.4Mbps EDIT: I do agree that lossless (or at least high bitrate modern lossy, like 256k Opus which is basically transparent) should be available in many more situations though.
Sesse__ 2y ago
192 kHz? That makes no sense, unless you want to have a telephone conversation between bats.
- paulmac_ie 2y ago
  192 kHz is the sampling rate, not the sound frequency.
  - fhars 2y ago
    That still makes no sense, unless you want to have phone calls between bats.
    - hypercube33 2y ago
      I just want smooth 90s jazz hold music to sound ok.
  - sneak 2y ago
    nyquist-shannon means that you only need to sample at 192khz if you need to encode signals up to 96khz. humans can’t hear above 20khz. adult humans can’t hear above 16khz or so, we lose the top end before age 20. this means that the standard 48khz sampling rate covers the entire human hearing range and then some (0-24khz). any sampling rate over 48khz for sound intended for human hearing is a total waste.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Why do 96 or 128khz sampled audio files sound better than 48khz ones? I blind tested and could always tell the difference between them, but not between 128 and 192
      - toast0 2y ago
        Typically, high sampling rate files are part of a different mastering process than what is published as a 44.1kHz cd audio or 48kHz dvd audio. Also, you might possibly be sensitive to resampling artifacts if your output device runs at 44.1kHz and your file is 48kHz or vice versa. Audio testing is hard, and testing on yourself is tricky... But if you have a sample that you're convinced sounds better at high rates than lower rates, I would urge you to put it through a tool to resample it down to lower rates and see if/when you can tell the difference. If the rate isn't an even multiple, it's worth using a tool that can dither; dithered resampling artifacts are less abrasive than undithered... I had some voice recordings to play over the phone, and everything needed to be 8kHz u-law; the 48kHz original recordings sounded better than 44.1kHz original recordings because one is even multiple and the other isn't, but either way, the waveforms looked worse than it sounded.
danbee 2y ago
There is zero point in sampling higher than 48khz. That captures all frequencies up to 20khz or so. 192khz is just a waste of bandwidth for no actual gain.
giantrobot 2y ago
That's an absurd bit rate for humans, especially talking about voice. 24-bit samples is ridiculous overkill. That's a huge dynamic range that's completely unnecessary. At 192KHz you'd be able to capture 96KHz signals, far, FAR outside the range of human hearing. Human hearing peaks at 22KHz so you only need a sample rate of 44KHz to capture the total range of human hearing. For human voice you don't really need better than 16-bit samples at 12KHz or so. That's for great quality voice. The only reason audio mastering is done at huge sample sizes and sampling frequencies is to prevent aliasing during mixing and to preserve higher frequency harmonics. There's absolutely no need for such rates delivering to human beings. Also higher fidelity audio sampling is available for phone calls. The issue is more political than technical. Cellular carriers don't like to negotiate higher quality calls between one another so inter-carrier calls tend to fall back on the lowest common denominator AMR-NB codec. Intra-carrier calls don't even reliably pick AMR-WB let alone EVS available with VoLTE.

OhMeadhbh 2y ago

The economics probably aren't that great to send uncompressed voice into the data center. If you have a business that gets charged XX cents (or more likely .00XX cents) per GB of traffic and you can cut that in half by using compression... I think people will opt to use compression.

smittywerben 2y ago

You have an eye for quality. They should make an Apple voice dongle for that. Inside joke. Signing off.

Synaesthesia 2y ago

Speech compresses really well, with modern techniques you can get it down a lot. The big issue with analogue landline phone calls is the audio bandwidth is so limited. It's not the full frequency spectrum, most of it it cut off.

cosmotic 2y ago
For some context, wikipedia has a good table and diagram of codecs that do well at low bitrates, many of which are very old (G.722 from the late 1988, Speex from 2003, Opus from 2012 for a few examples) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_coding_formats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_coding_for... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)#Quality_comparison_and_low-latency_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(audio_format)#Quality_co...
numpad0 2y ago
I have no problems with Opus or mp3 at low bitrate, in the same way I have no problems with microwaved food. I just think it's crazy that no one is doing 4Mbps audio while we're routinely streaming 20Mbps video as cheap distractions.
- piperswe 2y ago
  4Mbps audio doesn't really make sense when you can just about perfectly replicate any human-audible sound in ~1.4Mbps EDIT: I do agree that lossless (or at least high bitrate modern lossy, like 256k Opus which is basically transparent) should be available in many more situations though.

Sesse__ 2y ago

192 kHz? That makes no sense, unless you want to have a telephone conversation between bats.

paulmac_ie 2y ago
192 kHz is the sampling rate, not the sound frequency.
- fhars 2y ago
  That still makes no sense, unless you want to have phone calls between bats.
  - hypercube33 2y ago
    I just want smooth 90s jazz hold music to sound ok.
- sneak 2y ago
  nyquist-shannon means that you only need to sample at 192khz if you need to encode signals up to 96khz. humans can’t hear above 20khz. adult humans can’t hear above 16khz or so, we lose the top end before age 20. this means that the standard 48khz sampling rate covers the entire human hearing range and then some (0-24khz). any sampling rate over 48khz for sound intended for human hearing is a total waste.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Why do 96 or 128khz sampled audio files sound better than 48khz ones? I blind tested and could always tell the difference between them, but not between 128 and 192
    - toast0 2y ago
      Typically, high sampling rate files are part of a different mastering process than what is published as a 44.1kHz cd audio or 48kHz dvd audio. Also, you might possibly be sensitive to resampling artifacts if your output device runs at 44.1kHz and your file is 48kHz or vice versa. Audio testing is hard, and testing on yourself is tricky... But if you have a sample that you're convinced sounds better at high rates than lower rates, I would urge you to put it through a tool to resample it down to lower rates and see if/when you can tell the difference. If the rate isn't an even multiple, it's worth using a tool that can dither; dithered resampling artifacts are less abrasive than undithered... I had some voice recordings to play over the phone, and everything needed to be 8kHz u-law; the 48kHz original recordings sounded better than 44.1kHz original recordings because one is even multiple and the other isn't, but either way, the waveforms looked worse than it sounded.

danbee 2y ago

There is zero point in sampling higher than 48khz. That captures all frequencies up to 20khz or so. 192khz is just a waste of bandwidth for no actual gain.

giantrobot 2y ago

That's an absurd bit rate for humans, especially talking about voice. 24-bit samples is ridiculous overkill. That's a huge dynamic range that's completely unnecessary. At 192KHz you'd be able to capture 96KHz signals, far, FAR outside the range of human hearing. Human hearing peaks at 22KHz so you only need a sample rate of 44KHz to capture the total range of human hearing. For human voice you don't really need better than 16-bit samples at 12KHz or so. That's for great quality voice. The only reason audio mastering is done at huge sample sizes and sampling frequencies is to prevent aliasing during mixing and to preserve higher frequency harmonics. There's absolutely no need for such rates delivering to human beings. Also higher fidelity audio sampling is available for phone calls. The issue is more political than technical. Cellular carriers don't like to negotiate higher quality calls between one another so inter-carrier calls tend to fall back on the lowest common denominator AMR-NB codec. Intra-carrier calls don't even reliably pick AMR-WB let alone EVS available with VoLTE.