Bifwynne, and the paper at the xiph link he gives, is precisely correct. Formats for playback at a bit depth & sample rate higher than 16/44.1 do not and can not sound *intrinsicly* one bit (pun intended) better to human hearing. In fact, they may in some real world circumstances actually sound worse. Studios, including myself, often do their work using higher bit depths & sample rates for very valid technical reasons. The critical difference to the final listening experience is in the mixing, mastering and the final conversion to 16/44.1. (NOTE: typically different masters are produced for different formats, including, most especially, LP.) IF studio production is done properly (too often it isn't, IMHO), and IF the playback kit is of even moderately good quality, 16/44.1 has the potential to give the final listener as good sound quality as can be had. Any higher rate format should at the very least be a waste of media space and money. If you think you hear a difference, and you may, be assured that the difference is NOT due to the format itself.
24/192 Big Improvement Over 24/96????
Just saw that HD Tracks have released Miles Davis Kind of Blue in both 24/96 and 24/192 formats; which one do I get? Is it worth the extra expense to go to the higher resolution format, have you noticed any improvements with this recording, or any other, when stepping up from 24/96 to 24/192?
Second question; the remastered CD of Kind Of Blue sounds very good to me; is the HD Tracks digital download noticeably superior?
Second question; the remastered CD of Kind Of Blue sounds very good to me; is the HD Tracks digital download noticeably superior?