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

@beetlemania,

"In blind testing with foobar "comparator", I could reliably distinguish 24/44 from 16/44 but not 24/44 from either 24/96 or 24/192. So, I am a fan of 24-bit files!’


If you’re attempting to generalise then that’s a hugely iconoclastic statement to make. I’d say it’s amazing even - given that some of us struggle to hear the difference between (like for like) 192 kbps and 320 kbps files!

Since it’s easy enough to rip the same track to 128/192/320kbps comparisons are easy whether via headphone playback or burning to CD. Certainly worth a go before investing in High-res downloads.

Of course if you prefer the mastering which may be unique to high-res files then that’s a different matter, but if you’re saying you prefer Hi-res to standard red book then surely you would have to compare like with like.

As far as we know it’s not humanly possible to ’reliably distinguish’ distinguish anything above Red Book CD.

Or is it?

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.

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