Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Why 24-bit/192kHz music files make no sense - and may be bad for you!

<< < (2/16) > >>

40hz:
I cannot off the top of my not-so-sober head think of any sort of reason that uncompressed audio would have any sort of issue
-Renegade (March 06, 2012, 12:27 PM)
--- End quote ---

Ah Renegade! ;D Best read the article then. It's anything but off the top of the head or gut.

The issue he raises with ultrasonics and intermodulation distortion is valid and well documented. People running sound clamp down on the high end in the stage mix as much as possible while trying not to remove any more 'sizzle' than necessary. If you don't do that, your 'house sound' gets very harsh and your hi-freq drivers burn out much more often.

The weird thing about digital is the way distortion manifests itself. With analog, distortion generally increases and decreases with the total signal level. With digital, noise is fixed and has this weird way of sounding like it's increasing as you lower the volume. That's not something that occurs in nature, so your lower brain goes into a tailspin subconsciously trying to figure it out. The end result is that humans tend to be bothered (on a gut level) by digital distortion much more than they are by analog distortion. Probably because the way digital distortion behaves is "not of this earth." And on an instinctive level, your brain knows it - and flags it as potential danger.

Which is also why digital recordings sound so "hot." You want to get as much audible signal up above the 'noise floor' as possible in order to mask the fixed amount of quantizing distortion in the signal. So you crank the recording levels. With analog you can only push it up so far without introducing more distortion. So the name of the game with analog is to push it up just short of clipping.

Yup. Times have changed. In the old days, the way to cut back on distortion was to "turn it down." With digital, one way to minimize perceived distortion is to "crank it up."

Curt:
The weird thing about digital is the way distortion manifests itself. With analog, distortion generally increases and decreases with the total signal level. With digital, noise is fixed and has this weird way of sounding like it's increasing as you lower the volume. That's not something that occurs in nature, so your lower brain goes into a tailspin subconsciously trying to figure it out. The end result is that humans tend to be bothered (on a gut level) by digital distortion much more than they are by analog distortion. Probably because the way digital distortion behaves is "not of this earth." And on an instinctive level, your brain knows it - and flags it as potential danger.-40hz (March 06, 2012, 01:46 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well said, and trustworthy.  :up:

However, 24/192 being fragile, is no excuse for Monty's clever argued distortion,
because 24/192 is superior, only the recording may not be.

Stoic Joker:
I don't like it when they digitally remaster things. I liked the way Molly Hatchet sounded on an 8-track back in the day.

This sounds like a new twist on why the old way was better - I like that - I'll have to read more when I have time.

40hz:

because 24/192 is superior,

-Curt (March 06, 2012, 01:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

Because?

Did you read the entire article and understand what he was saying? It's not just about distortion. It primarily deals with using music files at resolutions and sample rates that add no audible improvements to the playback. And that also have the potential to create worse sound in the process. At the very least, he's saying they waste space. At worst, they don't sound as good as theoretically lower resolution sampling sizes..

Also note he's talking about the final playback files (i.e. the ones you buy for your iPod) - not the intermediate work files that get created and used during the recording process. He explains why high sampling rates are not a bad thing when recording or mastering.

He's arguing for the lower sample rate for distributed songs.

 :)

superboyac:
You know, this is a really good article and makes a lot of sense of the mysterious world of audiophiles.  Most of us know now that those stupid expensive cables are all a scam for digital music.  Monster cables?  gold plated connectors?  really people?

But the one piece of equipment I have recently accepted as being effective are pre-amps.  And if I'm understanding it correctly, the article actually confirms this belief.  For a given volume, I've noticed equipment with good or better pre-amps makes the sound more pleasing to the ear.  Why?  Well, apparently, for digital music, amplifying the signal reduces the effect of noise...and it's the opposite for analog.

You can tell the difference a pre-amp makes.  Compare a high end Sony mp3 player to an ipod or any other cheapo player.  If you try it with different speakers, different headphones, in the car, in a room...you will soon notice that pre-amping the signal makes it buttery better.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page