5 ms·

I cannot hear the difference between 16/44.1 (and by extension, 16/48) and High-Res Content generally, be they HDCD, SACD, or just straight-up Masters from Qobu

I cannot hear the difference between 16/44.1 (and by extension, 16/48) and High-Res Content generally, be they HDCD, SACD, or just straight-up Masters from Qobuz. This is on multiple sets of equipment, ranging from El Cheapo earbuds all the way to HD800 cans and full-fledged tower speakers being bi-amped. That’s not why I go for High-Res stuff, though. It’s all about archival, at least for me. With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater. The point isn’t that I can hear the difference, it’s the fear that I might lose something irrecoverable by sticking with lower-quality files for bulk storage. Once data has been discarded, it cannot be retrieved, and that influences my preference for storage (and is also why my BD/UHD rips are into MKVs, no re-encoding). Now that being said, I will absolutely hem and haw and ABX different releases to determine if I opt for the 16/44.1 CD rip of an album from the 80s or the new 202X remaster in 24/192 (spoiler: almost always the former), and I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats because of a subjective perception of a wider, clearer sound stage, though this is almost certainly a psychological effect from performing in concert bands and orchestras rather than physical or objective in nature. Like I tell newcommers: if it sounds better enough to you to warrant the purchase price, then that’s all that really matters. Enjoy the hobby.

Cider9986 3mo ago
I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC.
- stego-tech 3mo ago
  And that's fine! I've got a flatmate who loves 320kpbs MP3s on studio monitors, I've got musician friends who swear by CD-audio and Sennheiser HD200s, and others who love how vinyl uniquely degrades over time on big speakers. The takeaway from these sorts of posts, at least in my opinion, should be two-fold: * Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts * Liberate you from the "tech grind" and allow you to enjoy what you like, how you like it.
  - dspillett 3mo ago
    > Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts Also understand that while there is an upper limit, we are all different within that. I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC, at least for some content, but not 256Kbps, maybe not 192. For some content (spoken word etc.), 64Kbps, sometimes less, is perfectly acceptable (to me). There was a time I could hear the difference between some encoders, but that was decades ago and anything in active use is pretty damn good (and my ears are not what they used to be) unless you really crank the bitrate down or tweak other options daftly.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
      > I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC You've established this with double bind testing, correct?
      - dspillett 3mo ago
        Some time ago, yes. For 128 and there-about & below, not 192+ hence I'm less certain about that (but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference). Not recently, so it is possible that improvements in encoding methods, and changes in my ears, could mean that I'd get a different result now.
    - sgarland 3mo ago
      I’ve not tried encoding my own MP3s in at least a decade, but when I was doing so, 128 kbps was instantly distinguishable to me on anything with cymbals, especially hi-hat: it loses that shimmery sound. At 192 kbps I could tell if I really, really tried, but it was so minute I didn’t really care. I was never able to reliably tell the difference between 256 and 320 kbps rips.
  - Cider9986 3mo ago
    The thing I didn't understand with higher quality music files is that it's not like the entire song is different and better when you go from 64 to 128 kbps opus, it's just these super minor details that get changed. It was enlightening doing an abx test, but I still use flacs because it's nice not worrying about the quality mattering.
- nullc 3mo ago
  > I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC. A reasonable definition of transparency for high bitrate compressed audio is "Can the worst files be distinguished by a listener trained in what artifacts sound like". Maybe also add in having to use a high discrimination listening setup, including not running excessively loud (increases masking). If that's not the test you're doing, it's unsurprising. At moderately high bitrates no one can reliably distinguish them on arbitrary samples: most inputs are easy. If you test on known-difficult "killer samples" you'll probably easily distinguish them, even without first being shown what to look for, and certainly after. During the development of Opus I created many 'trained listeners' and selected many killer samples, and I don't recall* ever encountering a tin ear that couldn't be taught to ABX any high rate samples, though some people are obviously much better at it. I'm not sure I'd recommend it though: learning to identify artifacts has a frequent side effect of making low rate audio like the HE-aac used in SirusXM absolutely intolerable. I'm bothered by it even when I hear cars driving by using it. :) [*] My memory for such things sucks, so I could be wrong-- but my point that it's not expected remains.
  - Cider9986 3mo ago
    I did the ABX test extension in foobar2000 with Octopus's Garden. It was on nice headphones. You're right it's just minor details.
saltcured 3mo ago
Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart. I also spent a lot of time ripping my old CDs to FLAC and trying different MP3 and AAC encoder settings to get playback that felt transparent enough to me. I could never tolerate Sirius/XM radio streaming due to the horrid compression I heard with every futile attempt. I still seem to have more sensitive hearing than most people around me, but in my 50s I know it isn't what it once was. I never had huge budgets, but did strive for hi-fi in my limited ways. I used things like toslink and HDMI to send raw PCM data from Linux to my Yamaha A/V receiver's DACs + amplifier to drive somewhat nice Polk tower speakers. But then COVID-19 happened, and this stuff was packed up to move house. Nowadays, music playback is streaming with mundane "subwoofer + satellite" PC speakers or MP3 playback with a mini-SD card permanently parked in my car's infotainment system.
- empiricus 3mo ago
  Even for PC, I recommend some cheap studio monitors.
  - bob1029 3mo ago
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964752-REG/yamaha_hs8_8_2_way_bi_amplified.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964752-REG/yamaha_hs8...
    - bzzzt 3mo ago
      Those things have huge drivers and are probably too big for a lot of rooms. Unless you (and your neighbors) absolutely want to have that thumping sound and you go out of your way to kill unwanted bass reflection you're probably better off with the HS5 or something similar.
      - 3mo ago
dtgriscom 3mo ago
> I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats High-dynamic-range material benefits from lots of bits.
- javchz 3mo ago
  This. It may be a niche. But music that works with volume as part of the composition can be amazing. But most music today has heavy compressors in the pipeline that kills dynamic range in favor of allowing you to hear almost even whispers, even in traffic or a city with ear pods. But if you're from the first group, as you said it's more noticable the benefits of having better codecs and bit depth vs heavily compressed top billboard songs where even listening the master track from the studio, falls into diminishing returns.
dialogbox 3mo ago
> With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater. I used to think the same. But I realized that downsampling hi-res music to 16/44.1 isn't a transparent conversion. So now I prefer the one downsampled to 16/44.1 by an expert in production env. I almost always download 16/44.1 flac files because of this.
raxxorraxor 3mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48774112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48774112 <-- Here is a test. I would have said the same and I played all samples quite often. It is extremely subtle, but even with a cheap headset it is possible to hear differences, where the high quality version is just a little bit clearer.
IshKebab 3mo ago
That's not really how down sampling works. You already have all the information with 48 kHz sampling. Higher rate sampling is just like storing integers to 3 decimal places, or archiving an upscaled DVD. I recommend you actually read the article. I vaguely recall they did it in video form too.

Cider9986 3mo ago

I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC.

stego-tech 3mo ago
And that's fine! I've got a flatmate who loves 320kpbs MP3s on studio monitors, I've got musician friends who swear by CD-audio and Sennheiser HD200s, and others who love how vinyl uniquely degrades over time on big speakers. The takeaway from these sorts of posts, at least in my opinion, should be two-fold: * Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts * Liberate you from the "tech grind" and allow you to enjoy what you like, how you like it.
- dspillett 3mo ago
  > Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts Also understand that while there is an upper limit, we are all different within that. I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC, at least for some content, but not 256Kbps, maybe not 192. For some content (spoken word etc.), 64Kbps, sometimes less, is perfectly acceptable (to me). There was a time I could hear the difference between some encoders, but that was decades ago and anything in active use is pretty damn good (and my ears are not what they used to be) unless you really crank the bitrate down or tweak other options daftly.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3mo ago
    > I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC You've established this with double bind testing, correct?
    - dspillett 3mo ago
      Some time ago, yes. For 128 and there-about & below, not 192+ hence I'm less certain about that (but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference). Not recently, so it is possible that improvements in encoding methods, and changes in my ears, could mean that I'd get a different result now.
  - sgarland 3mo ago
    I’ve not tried encoding my own MP3s in at least a decade, but when I was doing so, 128 kbps was instantly distinguishable to me on anything with cymbals, especially hi-hat: it loses that shimmery sound. At 192 kbps I could tell if I really, really tried, but it was so minute I didn’t really care. I was never able to reliably tell the difference between 256 and 320 kbps rips.
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  The thing I didn't understand with higher quality music files is that it's not like the entire song is different and better when you go from 64 to 128 kbps opus, it's just these super minor details that get changed. It was enlightening doing an abx test, but I still use flacs because it's nice not worrying about the quality mattering.
nullc 3mo ago
> I can't hear the difference between 128 kbps opus and FLAC. A reasonable definition of transparency for high bitrate compressed audio is "Can the worst files be distinguished by a listener trained in what artifacts sound like". Maybe also add in having to use a high discrimination listening setup, including not running excessively loud (increases masking). If that's not the test you're doing, it's unsurprising. At moderately high bitrates no one can reliably distinguish them on arbitrary samples: most inputs are easy. If you test on known-difficult "killer samples" you'll probably easily distinguish them, even without first being shown what to look for, and certainly after. During the development of Opus I created many 'trained listeners' and selected many killer samples, and I don't recall* ever encountering a tin ear that couldn't be taught to ABX any high rate samples, though some people are obviously much better at it. I'm not sure I'd recommend it though: learning to identify artifacts has a frequent side effect of making low rate audio like the HE-aac used in SirusXM absolutely intolerable. I'm bothered by it even when I hear cars driving by using it. :) [*] My memory for such things sucks, so I could be wrong-- but my point that it's not expected remains.
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  I did the ABX test extension in foobar2000 with Octopus's Garden. It was on nice headphones. You're right it's just minor details.

saltcured 3mo ago

Decades ago, I was treated to an ABX test in my brother's recording studio. I easily recognized and preferred a 24/192 master he played versus the 16/44.1 down-mix. I honestly don't know whether there was something wrong with the down-mix, but qualitatively it did feel like it was "muffled" and coming from speakers, while the master really felt like live performance. He was surprised that I could tell them apart. I also spent a lot of time ripping my old CDs to FLAC and trying different MP3 and AAC encoder settings to get playback that felt transparent enough to me. I could never tolerate Sirius/XM radio streaming due to the horrid compression I heard with every futile attempt. I still seem to have more sensitive hearing than most people around me, but in my 50s I know it isn't what it once was. I never had huge budgets, but did strive for hi-fi in my limited ways. I used things like toslink and HDMI to send raw PCM data from Linux to my Yamaha A/V receiver's DACs + amplifier to drive somewhat nice Polk tower speakers. But then COVID-19 happened, and this stuff was packed up to move house. Nowadays, music playback is streaming with mundane "subwoofer + satellite" PC speakers or MP3 playback with a mini-SD card permanently parked in my car's infotainment system.

empiricus 3mo ago
Even for PC, I recommend some cheap studio monitors.
- bob1029 3mo ago
  https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964752-REG/yamaha_hs8_8_2_way_bi_amplified.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964752-REG/yamaha_hs8...
  - bzzzt 3mo ago
    Those things have huge drivers and are probably too big for a lot of rooms. Unless you (and your neighbors) absolutely want to have that thumping sound and you go out of your way to kill unwanted bass reflection you're probably better off with the HS5 or something similar.
    - 3mo ago

dtgriscom 3mo ago

> I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats High-dynamic-range material benefits from lots of bits.

javchz 3mo ago
This. It may be a niche. But music that works with volume as part of the composition can be amazing. But most music today has heavy compressors in the pipeline that kills dynamic range in favor of allowing you to hear almost even whispers, even in traffic or a city with ear pods. But if you're from the first group, as you said it's more noticable the benefits of having better codecs and bit depth vs heavily compressed top billboard songs where even listening the master track from the studio, falls into diminishing returns.

dialogbox 3mo ago

> With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater. I used to think the same. But I realized that downsampling hi-res music to 16/44.1 isn't a transparent conversion. So now I prefer the one downsampled to 16/44.1 by an expert in production env. I almost always download 16/44.1 flac files because of this.

raxxorraxor 3mo ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48774112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48774112 <-- Here is a test. I would have said the same and I played all samples quite often. It is extremely subtle, but even with a cheap headset it is possible to hear differences, where the high quality version is just a little bit clearer.

IshKebab 3mo ago

That's not really how down sampling works. You already have all the information with 48 kHz sampling. Higher rate sampling is just like storing integers to 3 decimal places, or archiving an upscaled DVD. I recommend you actually read the article. I vaguely recall they did it in video form too.