Discussion summary
Discussions highlight that 24-bit/192kHz audio is common in recording but unnecessary for typical listening. Experts mention that human perception and practical use cases do not benefit from such high fidelity.
What the discussion says
- 24-bit/192kHz is standard in recording studios.
- High bit depths and sample rates are often unnecessary for casual listening.
- Some users joke about the absurdity of high-end audio equipment and cables.
“24 bits is now ubiquitous and 32 bit is becoming the norm in recording studios.”
“For typical listening, 16-bit/44.1kHz is sufficient.”
Comments
Hacker News
The whole audiophile industry is built on stuff which doesn't make any sense
My favourite: "audiophile-grade" audio players which allocate a single continuous buffer of RAM into which they load/decode the whole .WAV/.FLAC file, because supposedly the CPU "jumping" between "fragmented audio" causes audible "jitter".
Of course, they don't know that what looks like continuous memory to user-code is probably discontinuous in kernel/physical RAM.
Didn't check in many years, I wonder if they created kernel level players to account for that, to have "true continuous memory"
by dist-epoch
This really is driving a muscle/super car, or drinking expensive wine. At the end none of specs or tests matter. It is a form of art. If it makes the listener feel better (even if its just psychological) then its probably worth it.
by Tsarp
If you can't hear the squeals of the plants [1] in the studio's reception area, are you really getting the full experience of a piece of music?
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/world/plants-make-sounds-scn
by jerf
24-bit was created because microphone want to record large dynamic range without gain switching circuit.
96kHz was created to better reproduce 20kHz high frequency, so the digital noise shaping filter does not need to be super sharp right at the Nyquist frequency.
Both were introduced for a sound technical reason. beyond that, most are marketing non-sense to cheat consumers.
by ycui7
@xiphmont also made an amazing video response to the many responses he received to this article. Using analog equipment he busts a bunch of myths and demonstrates what really happens with digital audio.
https://video.xiph.org/vid2.shtml
or on YT if you can't play it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
The article says "I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of the 'same' recording. This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different."
It may be simultaneously true that:
A) Humans cannot tell the difference between 44.1kHz/16-bit audio and any higher resolution, and
B) For a particular song, the best commercially available 44.1kHz/16-bit version may not be the best commercially available version
As they say, most people listen to their music with equipment. Audiophiles listen to their equipment with music.
by z_open
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.
by stego-tech
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- The whole audiophile industry is built on stuff which doesn't make any sense
My favourite: "audiophile-grade" audio players which allocate a single continuous buffer of RAM into which they load/decode the whole .WAV/.FLAC file, because supposedly the CPU "jumping" between "fragmented audio" causes audible "jitter".
Of course, they don't know that what looks like continuous memory to user-code is probably discontinuous in kernel/physical RAM.
Didn't check in many years, I wonder if they created kernel level players to account for that, to have "true continuous memory"
by dist-epoch - This really is driving a muscle/super car, or drinking expensive wine. At the end none of specs or tests matter. It is a form of art. If it makes the listener feel better (even if its just psychological) then its probably worth it.by Tsarp
- If you can't hear the squeals of the plants [1] in the studio's reception area, are you really getting the full experience of a piece of music?
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/world/plants-make-sounds-scn
by jerf - 24-bit was created because microphone want to record large dynamic range without gain switching circuit.
96kHz was created to better reproduce 20kHz high frequency, so the digital noise shaping filter does not need to be super sharp right at the Nyquist frequency.
Both were introduced for a sound technical reason. beyond that, most are marketing non-sense to cheat consumers.
by ycui7 - @xiphmont also made an amazing video response to the many responses he received to this article. Using analog equipment he busts a bunch of myths and demonstrates what really happens with digital audio.
https://video.xiph.org/vid2.shtml
or on YT if you can't play it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
- The article says "I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of the 'same' recording. This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different."
It may be simultaneously true that:
A) Humans cannot tell the difference between 44.1kHz/16-bit audio and any higher resolution, and
B) For a particular song, the best commercially available 44.1kHz/16-bit version may not be the best commercially available version
- As they say, most people listen to their music with equipment. Audiophiles listen to their equipment with music.by z_open
- 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.
by stego-tech