speakers for 24/96 audio

I think redbook CD format specifies the dynamic range for the 16 bit format and is fairl y standardized as a result.

Not sure this is the case with other newer hi rez digital formats?

More bits enables more dynamic range and more detail together. How this happens might be highly variable in lieu of a standard.

In any case, for hi rez digital sources, I suspect a difference associated mainly with the high frequencies can be heard if done right, but that may be a big if at this juncture still.

To hear the most possible, you definitely want very good, younger ears, speakers that can handle dynamics and transients well and also have very good detail assuming the production is done well and the DAC not only reads the format but is able to output analog of similar resolution and quality.

At this still emerging stage of hi rez digital audio, I doubt it is a safe bet that hi rez source material and playback gear meets these requirements well in general, although I am sure there is some reference type recordings and better gear that do.

The first place I would listen for the difference is in well recorded massed bowed strings in orchestral music. Use a good modern RTR reference recording as a reference standard. Even older trained ears should hear a noticeable difference if the digital is not extremely well done.

I have had the opportunity to listen to RTR, vinyl, and good redbook CD recordings on a very well done dealer system using mbl 111e speakers. The difference from RTR to redbook CD was pronounced but you might not notice the limitations of the redbook CD unless compared to the RTR or even good vinyl on a similarly good system.

The SOTA wide and deep soundstage in this optimized and very resolving mbl setup provided exactly the venue size and 3 dimensonal sound quality needed to be able to hear these kinds of differences clearly. Quite an eye (ear?) opener!

Bottom line: I am not losing any sleep over hi rez digital. There are too many ifs to really matter at this point for me and the benefits are marginal compared to the extra cost and overhead associated with even larger data files.

"Kijanki, are you implying that 24bit data words have a "finer grain" than 16bit data words? That each bit represents a smaller incremental signal level? "

That's the basic reason to us more bits in each sample in digital signal processing of any kind, isn't it?

I think redbook CD done perfectly correctly both in recording and playback does fit the bill very well as designed as Shadorne indicated.

THe problem is more often the difference between design and theory and its realization in products, which is imperfect.

In order for hi res digital to make a difference, quality standards for accuracy have to be raised as well from end to end. To do that is relatively expensive still, I believe, though technology advances and should become more practical and affordable to achieve sometime down the road.

Not to say there may not be a practical advantage today for some, but this is very marginal at best, very expensive, and still probably not where I would want it to be in terms of technological maturity for me as a fairly average Joe audio buff to buy in.

I do need to download some hi res files sometime soon though and actually test out the waters a bit (no pun intended).

Sounds like the consensus is that the original CD redbook format engineers did a more than adequate job, at least in theory.

So does that mean that when we hear deficiencies in specific redbook CDs compared to other formats (say R2R or very good vinyl even) that it is because of poor execution somewhere in the implementation , either in the recording or playback process or equipment, or most likely even both?

I like to think so but I have not heard the near perfectly created CD on the near perfectly executed system in a viable test scenario compared to other high quality formats yet that would confirm this, so I am not so sure reality reflects the theory in practice quite yet?

Has anybody else heard something specifically that has them convinced?

On my system, I think the issue is a wash, but I have done some imperfect a/b comparisons on very high end dealer reference systems where it was not, especially in comparison to R2R and with better large scale orchestral recordings involving massed strings in particular.

"In the past I've heard 1/2" 15 or 30ips tape with Dolby sound spectacular in a studio, but how many of us have access to such a thing?"

I'm referring to modern large format R2R reference recordings I have heard.

Yes, few have or would want access, but I guess my point is what I have heard here is the reference standard as best I can tell, so CD if adequate or more should be able to match it and I cannot say that it does based on what I have heard (though limited).

"Here's a better question: is there any significant amount of content coming out of the recording industry these days that requires a medium superior to a 16/44 CD?"

That is a good question. Again, for true hardcore audiophiles only, I think there may be some but not much, but I am not certain. Quality large scale orchestrated works with massed strings are the type I question most.

For 98% of the population (maybe more) I think redbook CD covers all teh needed bases adequately at least. That's pretty good!