5 ms·

The author admits that "16 bits does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions". But then the author concludes "

The author admits that "16 bits does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions". But then the author concludes "let's not use 24 bits anyway because it doesn't really help anyway, and it wastes space" Wastes space? In an age where we stream gigabyte movies? Do we need to remind the author that we're no longer in 1982 and that we have evolved beyond floppy disks?

joshstrange 12y ago
>> Wastes space? In an age where we stream gigabyte movies? Do we need to remind the author that we're no longer in 1982 and that we have evolved beyond floppy disks? Clever way of leaving out just how much space it takes up (takes up 6 times the space [0][1]) also as both this author and Xiph concluded you can't really hear the difference. When we stream HD (As you put it "Gigabyte movies") we are getting a clearly superior product. I can easily see the difference between 480/720/1080 whereas I seriously doubt I can hear the difference between 16 and 24bit audio. Yes space is cheaper than it used to be but it's neither free nor unlimited, not to mention the primary way people listen to music nowadays is probably on mobile devices where space is still at a premium or they enjoy their music via a streaming service a la Spotify/Rdio/Google Music where bandwidth is at a premium (And storage factors in here as well due to either being able to store less songs locally or in cache due to larger file size). [0] http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html [1] http://blog.beatunes.com/2014/04/does-24-bit-audio-matter.html http://blog.beatunes.com/2014/04/does-24-bit-audio-matter.ht...
- ygra 12y ago
  The six times figure is for 192kbps and 24 bit. The move from 16 to 24 bit alone would just result in an increase of 50 %.
  - joshstrange 12y ago
    Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that: filesize(192kbps + 16bit) = 6*filesize(192kbps + 24bits) Also the point of both articles is that: You can't hear the difference. Look at MP3 vs WAV (or FLAC), MP3 won out (for consumers) because of it's filesize being so much smaller. Look at the compression differences: >> Uncompressed audio as stored on an audio-CD has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s,[note 2] so the bitrates 128, 160 and 192 kbit/s represent compression ratios of approximately 11:1, 9:1 and 7:1 respectively. [0] At the best quality listed here (192kbps) MP3 is 7 times smaller than it's WAV counterpart. I just don't see people paying for 6x the space for something they can't tell the difference between. If anything history has proven this not to be the case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Bit_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Bit_rate
    - ygra 12y ago
      Trivial arithmetic: 192 ÷ 48 = 4 24 ÷ 16 = 1.5 4 × 1.5 = 6 The six times is also on the wrong side of your equation, I guess. But if you need a source, I can cite what you cited: > Unfortunately, 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, and it takes up 6 times the space. They were talking about both sampling rate and bit depth. Oh, and just for the record, I do agree with the general idea that it's useless to ship audio to consumers as 192/24, for the same reason it's unwieldy to publish photos online as 20+ MiB raw files (even if browsers could display them). I was just noting that the size comparison included both sampling rate and bit depth and not just one of them.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - harshreality 12y ago
      That equation is so wrong. filesize(192kHz + 24bit) = 6 * filesize(48kHz + 16bit) It also only applies directly to raw audio like pcm. Once you encode it (to, say, flac) some of that size increase could disappear depending on the waveform. I don't know how mp3 is defined for higher dynamic range, but I know frequency range/sampling rate doesn't matter, because a 128kbps mp3 is 128kbps whether the frequency cutoff is 14kHz or 20kHz. Isn't a 192kbps mp3 from a 16/48 master the same size as a 192kbps mp3 from a 24/192 master?
      - ygra 12y ago
        All this isn't about MP3, but FLAC which is lossless, so even for the compressed version the same ratios should approximately hold.
        harshreality 12y ago
coldtea 12y ago
>Wastes space? In an age where we stream gigabyte movies? Do we need to remind the author that we're no longer in 1982 and that we have evolved beyond floppy disks? Well, he probably also knows that we now increasingly use SSD disks for our laptops, that are more expensive and sold in lower capacities than HDs on average. Or that we also listen to music on mobile phones, with like 16 or 32 GB or space (which we also want for apps, photos, videos and other stuff). Or that we might have "evolved beyond floppy disks" but we have also evolved beyond having 20-100 albums in our collection. In fact digital music collections of 1000 or 10.000 albums are not uncommon. Now, 1000 albums of 500MB each would make it 500GB for an music lover's collection. That's a non starter in 99% of modern laptops, and impossible on an mobile phone. I'd rather have it compressed more or in less than 24bits, and fit more stuff to have with me to listen. (Also keep in mind that music lover is not the same as audiophile).
calinet6 12y ago
I think the definition of "wastes" is very important here. Don't use space that is literally wasted, because it adds zero information. It's equivalent to a database which adds a sequence of 32 bits of 1's after every field. It adds nothing for any purpose, yet it uses space. This space is truly wasted. Same with storing audio we cannot possibly hear.

joshstrange 12y ago

>> Wastes space? In an age where we stream gigabyte movies? Do we need to remind the author that we're no longer in 1982 and that we have evolved beyond floppy disks? Clever way of leaving out just how much space it takes up (takes up 6 times the space [0][1]) also as both this author and Xiph concluded you can't really hear the difference. When we stream HD (As you put it "Gigabyte movies") we are getting a clearly superior product. I can easily see the difference between 480/720/1080 whereas I seriously doubt I can hear the difference between 16 and 24bit audio. Yes space is cheaper than it used to be but it's neither free nor unlimited, not to mention the primary way people listen to music nowadays is probably on mobile devices where space is still at a premium or they enjoy their music via a streaming service a la Spotify/Rdio/Google Music where bandwidth is at a premium (And storage factors in here as well due to either being able to store less songs locally or in cache due to larger file size). [0] http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html [1] http://blog.beatunes.com/2014/04/does-24-bit-audio-matter.html http://blog.beatunes.com/2014/04/does-24-bit-audio-matter.ht...

ygra 12y ago
The six times figure is for 192kbps and 24 bit. The move from 16 to 24 bit alone would just result in an increase of 50 %.
- joshstrange 12y ago
  Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that: filesize(192kbps + 16bit) = 6*filesize(192kbps + 24bits) Also the point of both articles is that: You can't hear the difference. Look at MP3 vs WAV (or FLAC), MP3 won out (for consumers) because of it's filesize being so much smaller. Look at the compression differences: >> Uncompressed audio as stored on an audio-CD has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s,[note 2] so the bitrates 128, 160 and 192 kbit/s represent compression ratios of approximately 11:1, 9:1 and 7:1 respectively. [0] At the best quality listed here (192kbps) MP3 is 7 times smaller than it's WAV counterpart. I just don't see people paying for 6x the space for something they can't tell the difference between. If anything history has proven this not to be the case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Bit_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Bit_rate
  - ygra 12y ago
    Trivial arithmetic: 192 ÷ 48 = 4 24 ÷ 16 = 1.5 4 × 1.5 = 6 The six times is also on the wrong side of your equation, I guess. But if you need a source, I can cite what you cited: > Unfortunately, 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, and it takes up 6 times the space. They were talking about both sampling rate and bit depth. Oh, and just for the record, I do agree with the general idea that it's useless to ship audio to consumers as 192/24, for the same reason it's unwieldy to publish photos online as 20+ MiB raw files (even if browsers could display them). I was just noting that the size comparison included both sampling rate and bit depth and not just one of them.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - harshreality 12y ago
    That equation is so wrong. filesize(192kHz + 24bit) = 6 * filesize(48kHz + 16bit) It also only applies directly to raw audio like pcm. Once you encode it (to, say, flac) some of that size increase could disappear depending on the waveform. I don't know how mp3 is defined for higher dynamic range, but I know frequency range/sampling rate doesn't matter, because a 128kbps mp3 is 128kbps whether the frequency cutoff is 14kHz or 20kHz. Isn't a 192kbps mp3 from a 16/48 master the same size as a 192kbps mp3 from a 24/192 master?
    - ygra 12y ago
      All this isn't about MP3, but FLAC which is lossless, so even for the compressed version the same ratios should approximately hold.
      - harshreality 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>Wastes space? In an age where we stream gigabyte movies? Do we need to remind the author that we're no longer in 1982 and that we have evolved beyond floppy disks? Well, he probably also knows that we now increasingly use SSD disks for our laptops, that are more expensive and sold in lower capacities than HDs on average. Or that we also listen to music on mobile phones, with like 16 or 32 GB or space (which we also want for apps, photos, videos and other stuff). Or that we might have "evolved beyond floppy disks" but we have also evolved beyond having 20-100 albums in our collection. In fact digital music collections of 1000 or 10.000 albums are not uncommon. Now, 1000 albums of 500MB each would make it 500GB for an music lover's collection. That's a non starter in 99% of modern laptops, and impossible on an mobile phone. I'd rather have it compressed more or in less than 24bits, and fit more stuff to have with me to listen. (Also keep in mind that music lover is not the same as audiophile).

calinet6 12y ago

I think the definition of "wastes" is very important here. Don't use space that is literally wasted, because it adds zero information. It's equivalent to a database which adds a sequence of 32 bits of 1's after every field. It adds nothing for any purpose, yet it uses space. This space is truly wasted. Same with storing audio we cannot possibly hear.