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 5 responses by junzhang10

Agree well recorded and mastered 16/44 is very enjoyable. However 24/96 is better and 24/192 is even better. DSD is as good as 24/192.

I have 6TB of 96/24 and 192/24 FLAC files of music. and more than 1000 44.1K/16bit CDs. I will always prefer HiRes. However, I enjoy all of them. Music is music.
Yes if you have young ears to enjoy HiRes. Too back many young folks listen to 329kps MP3 with beats. HiRes is a waste for old ears.
Yes, you need 92k/24bit. 192k/24bit would be even better, better with an R2R DAC. Or go with DSD 2.8Mhz/1bit sigma-delta DAC.