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 anentropic on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @10:38AM (#15132450)
even on mp3s where the bitrate is low enough to hear some compression artefacts you would still be able to perceive the difference in dynamic range

and the iTunes files are 256 kbps AACs, you can't hear the compression

remember that 'compression' in this context is data compression and not audio compression (which acts directly on the dynamic range of the source)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by rplst8 on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @02:48PM (#15134822)
> the iTunes files are 256 kbps AACs, you can't hear the compression

I can most certainly hear the compression when compared with CD digital audio.

I fully understand the difference between data compression and dynamic range (not audio) compression.

What I'm saying is, lossy data compressed audio formats are already compromised enough to rule it out as a medium for audiophile use. Worrying about the dynamic range at that point is moot. It's going to be played on tiny, terrible sounding speakers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by tripzilch on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @04:53PM (#15135903)
> I can most certainly hear the compression when compared with CD digital audio.

with 256kbps AAC, really? yeah MP3 is old and even at 320kbps it throws away everything above 18kHz (which I can't hear personally, but some people can). However AAC is newer and better and blows MP3 out of the water (so do OGG and OPUS, btw). We got a lot better at psychoacoustics since MP3 started out. I strongly doubt you could hear it in a proper A/B test.

[ Parent | on HN ]