News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012). Parent comment

Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by anyfoo on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @05:51PM (#15127905)
We are not really talking about lossy codecs here, though, are we?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by trevyn on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @05:54PM (#15127929)
Ah, my mistake. But perhaps you could consider 24/192 -> 16/48 a lossy codec in this context; the same argument does apply, for the same reasons.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by anyfoo on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @06:17PM (#15128114)
That way it does make sense, editing might require higher fidelity than we can perceive in the final project to avoid artifacts.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by kuschku on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @04:00AM (#15130450)
Actually, the article is not talking about it, but the topic very much is lossy codecs.

Specifically, if 24/192 AAC is worth it compared to 16/44.1 AAC (and the answer to that is yes, although the answer to 24/192 WAV is no)

[ Parent | on HN ]