2. digital
  3. 151421-10803

Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?

It's really difficult to compare resolutions with different masterings, delivery methods, sources, etc. I have hundreds of HI-rez files (dsd, hi bit rate PCM, etc). I have to say that even 24/44 is probably revealing the best a recording has to offer. Obviously, recording formats, methods, etc all play a huge role. I'm not talking preferred sources like vinyl, sacd, etc. I'm talking about the recordings themselves. 

Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD. 

Opinions?

aberyclark

Showing 1 response by electroslacker

electroslacker
375 posts
 
I tend to think 16/44khz is a product of scientists who knew what they were doing, and hi-rez is usually the product of marketers who know how to spin a tale.  If the hi-rez purveyors are not sampling from analog tape, they'll likely selling refried beans.

The counter-(oranges) argument is a test that claimed double-blind viewers preferred watching 8k on a 65-inch TV even though they could not see a difference. "Double-blind viewing"? 

Personally, I agree with Erik on DACs.  I can't hear a difference between 16/44  Blood-on-Tracks and the hi-rez offering on a top modern DAC.
More to discover