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
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I used to be on the NASA (Voice) network back in the 70s at Goddard Space Flight Center for launches at Kennedy. Trust me, the sound of voice was clear as a bell and clean as a whistle. Voice quality was required to be 5x5. Besides nobody with any sense listens to diyaudio. 10-4. 🧑🏻‍🚀
jazzdc
13 posts
 
I had A/B'd the Chord 2 Qute in my systems against my (now ancient) Threshold DAC 2 and Threshold DAC 1/E. It was equal to the former and very, very slightly bested the latter. I also have listened to store systems with the Chord D.A.V.E. and thought them no better than mine.
So, the answer to your question is : No, you don't need anything better than 24/44. 
pirad
59 posts
 
Roger and out.
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 
I program my own computer
Beam myself into the future
atdavid
736 posts
 
Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it. Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital?
More to discover