Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Why 24-bit/192kHz music files make no sense - and may be bad for you!
JavaJones:
Actually, it's usually the professional/producer side that drives *media-based* tech innovation. This has been true of HD video, advances in audio, etc. I have no problem with 24/192 being used in the studio, or at least being available for those who want to use it. The natural progression is then for the speakers that can reproduce it to be developed for high-end studio purposes, then be bought/available for rich people who can afford it, then it ultimately becomes mass market and cheap enough for the average person to buy. That's *if* the technology actually catches on, and *if* it can be produced in a form that is not so delicate or subject to home environment variables that it doesn't work out. So basically I'm just saying that making Pono available now as a home listening technology is pointless and wasteful. By all means keep using it in studios, but let's wait until we can actually hear the difference, at which time great, a format is waiting in the wings.
So, no, the conclusions in the Xiph article are right on. It seems like we're actually in general agreement in terms of *right here and now* and *for the home user*. You just have a different idea of how the progression of technology works. I see little value in making content available without devices that can reproduce it. This is akin to selling 3D video *content* before you have even *invented* 3D TVs! The way it actually went was 3D TVs came out and there was very, very limited content, but their growing adoption drove content production. Think about it in the context of this debate...
- Oshyan
40hz:
I do hope they come up with a better form factor for the Pono than that triangular shaped thing Neil was carrying around for show & tell when/if it ever gets released.
:Thmbsup:
Renegade:
Actually, it's usually the professional/producer side that drives *media-based* tech innovation. This has been true of HD video, advances in audio, etc.
-JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
I didn't mean to address WHO drives it - only what tools do. Those are generally hardware.
I have no problem with 24/192 being used in the studio, or at least being available for those who want to use it. The natural progression is then for the speakers that can reproduce it to be developed for high-end studio purposes, then be bought/available for rich people who can afford it, then it ultimately becomes mass market and cheap enough for the average person to buy.
-JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
Bang on the money there! :)
That's *if* the technology actually catches on, and *if* it can be produced in a form that is not so delicate or subject to home environment variables that it doesn't work out.
-JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yep. That's how we ended up with VHS instead of Beta.
So basically I'm just saying that making Pono available now as a home listening technology is pointless and wasteful. By all means keep using it in studios, but let's wait until we can actually hear the difference, at which time great, a format is waiting in the wings.
-JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
But in 10 years, do you want to buy everything again? It's a gamble. I'm not sure I'd buy into Pono without the equipment to use it. I'm also not really a big fan of proprietary formats.
So, no, the conclusions in the Xiph article are right on.
-JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
We're not going to agree there. I think they're wrong for reasons different than they've presented, and for evidential reasons that have largely been ignored.
And you CAN take advantage of some of that today in the LFE zone down to about 16 Hz in some subwoofers.
** After a quick browse around, I've not seen any subwoofers going below 16 Hz, and I don't recall any off-hand going lower. There may be some that go lower.
HOWEVER!
In the headphone space you can get headphones that go down MUCH lower than 16 HZ.
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/products/TH-900.shtml#3
That goes down to 5 Hz.
Can we say BOOM~?
They also go up to 45 KHz, so there's a solid doubling above human hearing there, which isn't unrealistic for high energy, high frequency sounds to affect harmonics down the line.
My own headphones are AKG K240 MKIIs:
http://www.akg.com/K240+MKII-827.html?pid=1194&techspecs
They have a response between 15 Hz to 25 KHz.
So, I *could* see ghosts! ;D
It seems like we're actually in general agreement in terms of *right here and now* and *for the home user*.
-JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
On the practical side, absolutely. MP3 is good enough for most people.
You just have a different idea of how the progression of technology works. -JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, but that really wasn't the point that I was trying to make. I went on to that because you brought it into the discussion. Still fun though! :D
I see little value in making content available without devices that can reproduce it. -JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, we're getting there. 5 Hz is pretty damn low. Doubling the effectiveness of the technology would only get you to 2.5 Hz, which includes the bottom of a tiger's roar. It's a fight to the bottom there.
So, at the low end, we do have equipment that is doing pretty damn good. It's the high end where we're lacking.
This is akin to selling 3D video *content* before you have even *invented* 3D TVs! The way it actually went was 3D TVs came out and there was very, very limited content, but their growing adoption drove content production. Think about it in the context of this debate...
-JavaJones (September 26, 2013, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, yes and no. It's like selling 3D content that plays in a regular TV, but is way better in a 3D TV, that may never be produced.
Audio is like the bastard red-headed step-child: Nobody pays attention to the poor kid until the laundry and dishes aren't done and everyone is hungry and naked.
People like pictures. Video. Things they can see.
Audio is transitory, but pictures you can hang on your wall.
Given the destruction of and war on the middle class, I have a hard time imagining it being very profitable for audio companies to invest all that much into better products.
Just look at telephony. It sucks. We still have the same basic crap from about a century ago. It's not really improved all that much compared to other technologies. I hate using my phone. The sound quality is horrendous. Skype is better because it's not limited by legacy crap that telcos refuse to upgrade.
So... while I won't concede any of my theoretical points, I will concede the practical point for reasons very different from the Xiph article's reasons, and more in line with what you've outlined here - we are unlikely to get better audio reproduction equipment. (It will remain almost exclusively for military or para-military use.)
JavaJones:
So we have 5-45,000hz earphones, great, that means you can do the blind testing I was referring to on your theory of sub-audibles being perceivable by other means (or subconsciously). That's been my point all along: it matters not a whit if you don't record the full range of sound unless we can demonstrate conclusively that a range beyond that which we currently record and reproduce is actually perceivable (consistently, reproducibly) to the listener. *That* would make a compelling case for expanding the range of audio recording, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet. This can easily be tested for modern equipment though. So the thing to do is get a set of those headphones and some sample Pono files and do some blind tests. Since you already have good headphones, I nominate you as our first test subject. :D
It's like selling 3D content that plays in a regular TV, but is way better in a 3D TV, that may never be produced.
-Renegade (September 26, 2013, 09:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
"Way better" is highly debatable when, as I've pointed out multiple times, blind tests show that even MP3 vs. CD audio can seldom be differentiated. I would accept "but is potentially better in a 3D TV" as the comparative. But that doesn't sell it nearly as well, now does it? ;) And the fact that even this minor, incremental difference would only be noticed on a piece of hardware which may never exist... yeah, I'd rather not bother with Pono then and buy stuff over again in 10 years *if* there's a breakthrough.
It's not just that audio is "less profitable" to innovate in, it's also that it's a harder medium to push forward. Audio reproduction got a helluvalot closer to the limits of human perception than video did in a much shorter time. The gains that remain to be had are very incremental. We had nearly "perfect" audio reproduction in the home decades go, whereas for video, high definition has only become mainstream within the last 10 years, and even still it's far from "perfect", not only due to resolution and *color/brightness depth limitations*, but also due to lack of real 3D (with or without glasses), among other things. Audio doesn't suffer from the same limitations. The breakthroughs were easier to make and were made earlier (think multi-channel audio, for example).
My landline phone is just fine. Are you talking about landlines? Cell audio is crappy due both to legacy networks/tech, and the need to conserve bandwidth. There is some push forward toward "HD" call quality though, and I certainly welcome that. It *is* driven by market forces, so your argument there is sound. It's certainly not a fundamental technology limit. We could (and some people do) run Skype-like stuff over modern data networks and get better results.
- Oshyan
Campaigner8:
Dismiss this article completely. I don’t know his motivation to write complete tripe about high resolution music, but he couldn’t be more mistaken.
I could go on and on, but I don’t want to dignify such utter garbage. The bottom line is that digital music, CDs, and now, ultra compressed downloads and streaming has made most music unlistenable.
If you care about sound, buy an amplifier and CD player with DAC's (digital to analogue converters). It converts cold digital music to warm analogue sound. One should also invest in a handheld player that will play high resolution music. The higher the resolution, the better; up to 24 bit/192Khz.This will give you the best sound available. When you download these high resolution albums, it is the same as owning the master tape from the record companies. Lower resolution albums, if recorded properly will also be just fine. You can easily hook your handheld player to your home stereo with one cord. This way you can play the high resolution tracks on your home stereo. Let your ears tell you if the person who wrote this sham article is correct or incorrect. You can also purchase a larger version of your handheld player that streams and stores your high resolution music you have bought online at one of many sites dedicated to selling only high resolution music.
Take my advice and put this person’s article out of your mind permanently. Follow my advice, and thrust yourself back in time pre-digital. You will thank me for the sound advice. (pun intended)
https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=30209.0
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version