Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So, no point in 24/192 because it makes no difference in playback... but having lossless downloads is important in part for enabling remix culture? There's a bit of a double-standard here. Maybe I can't hear 24/192 audio, but isn't it better input for sampling?

The article is specifying 24/192 as useless for playback quality only. Halfway down he addresses the benefits of 24/192 for the sake of mixing and mastering different digital audio signals, but a final mix offers no benefit to the human listener when choosing between 16bit/44Khz and 24bit/192Khz.

What I was trying to get across is: every file has two potential purposes—listening and serving as input for sampling. So, if we care about enabling "remix culture", wouldn't make sense to offer a "24/192 FLAC" option for download, push DVDA over CD, etc., anyway?

I've never seen the hype from artists about 24/192 as being about better listening experience. It's about handing their consumers a better master so as to encourage and enable more of them to be remixers.

Yeah I think that's not obvious from the title of the article: 24/192 are useful downloads for the sake of editing.


The number after the slash in this conversation is 192kHz (sample rate), not 192kbps (compressed bitrate). The "44100Hz PCM audio" you see on your CDA/WAV/FLAC source, before lossy encoding, would be "192000Hz PCM audio" instead. Unlike bitrate, this number does not affect the "quality" of the sound (unless it's really low), but rather acts as a lowpass filter, dropping out the frequencies above 0.5x of it.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact