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

if you’re saying you prefer Hi-res to standard red book then surely you would have to compare like with like.

I started with 24/192 files and used dBPoweramp to make copies at 16/44, 24/44, 24/96. I made a few mistakes at first but then successfully distinguished 16/44 and 24/44 ten times in a row at which point I was satisfied that I could tell the difference. But my ability to distinguish the various sample rates with 24-bit files was no better than flipping a coin. YMMV.

I get why the industry pushes so called Hi-res , HD , MQA and what have you , their honest right ? I mean all this for the love of music in a modern repackaged form.
What makes 50 plus year old recordings let alone a recording made 5 years ago Hi-Resolution , marketing. 

I enjoy the convenience of streaming as much as the next guy and my favourite CDs ripped I enjoy them more now then I ever have at any other time do to a much better digital front end.

Finally I mentioned above some recent recordings done by Tonian Labs , the overall quality and stunning realism of these recordings fly in the face of everything offered today in these repackaged forms though many of the known uncompressed recordings I’ve listened to some come close however none so far equal Tony Mansians recordings and I’m still looking.

We have what we have and the industry will do what it’s best at ,keep selling .

I’m happy to read so many come to the truth 

1. Mastering and production are most of it. You’re playing in the margins for subjective enjoyment NOT for better quality with SRC 

2.  Modest to high end DAs are all very good.  Flavors of good to great.  Hardware matters more than SR.

3. 16/44.1 can be amazing. 24/44.1 is all any human can hear IF done well.  

4. The real issue in AD quality is not the SR it is the converter hardware.  Filters.  Analog path. Clocking. Power supply. Etc. These are the key.  

I master daily at 24/44.1 using Pacific Microsonics.  Would be a $70,000 AD today.  I can get a $200 AD for 192.  Which sounds better ?

5.  The NATIVE SAMPLE RATE of the mastering session is the BEST quality.  

Everything else is marketing and ego.  Period. 

www.magicgardenmastering.com

@brianlucey

It’s great to get feedback from a mastering engineer on this.  Thank you!

Is Pacific Microsonics the company that did HDCD in the 90s, which later sold to Microsoft?  The Linn Sondek LP12 and Arcam FMJ23 (with Ring DAC) are the players I have that are HDCD compatible.

Some of my favorite sounding albums have been HDCD.  “Wrecking Ball” by Emmylou Harris and “Sea Change” by Beck are two that come to mind.  Amazing music and excellent recordings!

@brianlucey, 

Thanks for the input! Great to have someone with hands on experience chime in here.

"1. Mastering and production are most of it. You’re playing in the margins for subjective enjoyment NOT for better quality with SRC" (sample rate converters)

"5.  The NATIVE SAMPLE RATE of the mastering session is the BEST quality.

Everything else is marketing and ego. Period."

Hopefully these anti-business model comments wont get you thrown out of the mastering union.

Just joking. Great website. Wow!

http://magicgardenmastering.com/