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

I have a DCS Vivaldi stack, which includes the upsampler with suitable other equipment. Anyone who cannot tell the differences on upsampling between normal cd and 192 and at each between level, either needs new ears, or better equipment. Stating 24/44.1 is all any human can hear if done well is just nonsense, from someone who has not heard the difference. As per usual. If you haven't heard what is possible - don't state ridiculous facts.

tatyana69,

Are you saying you were comparing normal CD to native 192, or normal CD against CD upsampled do 192?

The issue is that in general people think that a format that CAN store more dynamic range is better..
Think of why it is the music (songs) that is analysed for their softest and loudest passings. And not saying oh you have the song on format X that has dynamic range of Y dB. Therefore your song/music has Y dB.. ..no it doesn’t work like that..

(So you can put a recording that has a dynamic range of 20 dB. On a format that has 100 dB of dynamic range.)

My recording will still have *only* 20 dB. It doesn’t matter on what format it lays on. If it is 16 bits or 24 bits.

Another factor is that music in its own has naturally a dynamic range of 70 to 80 dB. So if we have a format that can contain the whole dynamic range of the music we have then we are done.

But most of us thinks that more is better.
A analogy is when you parallel parking your car. The car is the whole recorded music and the space you want to park your car is the format.
If you have a big space it is easier to park but if the space is 10 m long your car (music) is still 4 m and there is 6 m of unused space. You don’t have a longer car because the space is longer.. :)

Generally speaking, vinyl has almost always provided more dynamic range than digital. There are a number of reasons for that. One of course is the Loudness Wars (remastering) that have progressively sucked the life out of the music, mostly for CDs but also for SACD, BLU RAY, SHM-CD, SHM-Blu Ray and hi res streaming. To the point where you see dynamic ranges that look like a flatline on a very sick patient’s chart. Oh, well, I guess music industry executives have to eat, too.

The previous poster has a very good point. Putting overly compressed music on high density format discs is like shooting BBs with a 45.

Other reasons why dynamic range is relative poor on digital playback systems include - but are not limited to - ye olde scattered laser light interference, very low frequency and induced vibration and the self-inflicted flutter and vibration of the disc itself, as I’ve oft posted.

"Are you saying you were comparing normal CD to native 192, or normal CD against CD upsampled do 192? "

I have not heard many native 192! People have ripped to 192 and claimed 192, but they are not authentic, and on playback are easy to spot as being inferior. DCS upsampled to 192 is excellent. When I upsample to 384 (by mistake) I notice something is not right and realise I need to drop down to 192.
It is NOT the same as upsampling rips via dbpoweramp, which is pretty ineffective, which is again possibly why some people cannot tell the difference and then make false claims of the situation.
Dull cds are brought to life. For example 10cc recordings are a bit on the dull side, but they are lifted by the DCS, to now being very acceptable, and closer and closer to vinyl.