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
atdavid
736 posts
 
There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies.  While this can be shown to occur environmentally, as we are talking a playback system, the playback, if the goal is accuracy, should never add something at playback that was not there at recording.

The question, is, should we avoid the potential for euphonics, for the sake of technical accuracy?  Technical accuracy shuns ultrasonic modulation to audible frequency. That doesn't mean that some (or even a lot) of people won't like it, even if it is near impossible to control. Even allowing that as a creative control is warranted. I think on balance 24/96 makes sense, even if not technically warranted by current research.

So back to the ops question, Yes, 24/96, properly implemented appears to be all we need, and anything higher carries no benefit.


geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
That sounds so authoritative you almost made me think it’s true. 🤗
glupson
7,842 posts
 

I have no opinion/knowledge about technicalities of high resolution but did notice that some recordings (SACDs and one 24/96 download in my case) do seem to sound consistently better.


Could it be that mastering, or whatever other step before the actual final product, is better in those cases? In other words, when knowing that they are working on high resolution product, do engineers do a better job so it finally translates into better-sounding recording for me while not directly related to the sampling/resolution numbers? In the end, I end up with an impression that all those higher numbers mattered while it was really care that went into it?


I hope it is not too much out of the thread topic.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 

atdavid
There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies.

>>>>>Emphasis on “to my knowledge.” Never is a very long time. Nevertheless, I think you would have been more convincing if you had said, “never ever ever.”
atdavid
736 posts
 
GK: remaining irrelevant one post at a time.
More to discover