3 ms·

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 %.

by ygra 13y ago

joshstrange 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- harshreality 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago
      Approximately? Either it does or it doesn't. What I'm thinking is that a 4x increase in sampling rate doesn't necessarily lead to a 4x increase in waveform complexity except for certain types of random noise. With the references to 192kbps and mistakes, it wasn't clear what parent was talking about.
- DanBC 13y ago
  It's not even about file size or quality. People want mp3 because all their devices and software use mp3. Betamax didn't lose to VHS because it was worse.

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 %.

by ygra 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
harshreality 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago
    Approximately? Either it does or it doesn't. What I'm thinking is that a 4x increase in sampling rate doesn't necessarily lead to a 4x increase in waveform complexity except for certain types of random noise. With the references to 192kbps and mistakes, it wasn't clear what parent was talking about.
DanBC 13y ago
It's not even about file size or quality. People want mp3 because all their devices and software use mp3. Betamax didn't lose to VHS because it was worse.