Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

PO,

I must protest! Distortions indeed.

Just so you know I spend most of my time in various recording studios. Some high and mighty and some not so high and mighty. I think you may underestimate some of the members here and what they do for a living.

The number of studios using higher than 192k is very very small. For a start most studios use protools for tracking. Look at their hardware specs.(192k)

So it costs lots more to record hi Rez does it? Have you seen the price of HDs recently?

Don't you understand that whatever SACD or whichever format you like, the music for it, if recent, was probably recorded in protools. If not then the other usual suspects like Steinberg Nuendo/cubase or Digital preformer or Logic etc.

Take a look at their specs too. They will only handle 192k. So where are all those recordings done at much higher rates? Trust me they are far and few between.

You may find some DSD recorders, but show me a normal piece of music recorded that way as a multitrack, not just as a transfer to stereo for mastering.

You are very mistaken. Please see the logic. The file you download is closer to the original studio master than ever before.

Come on PO, come back with something better.
But I must apologise for my rudeness in the earlier post. There was no need for it.

Yep, Chad is right on... I don't have a ton of time in a real studio, but I have been running 48 channel boards in churches & such for several years... Lately we drop everything right to a file in 24/96, keep the file in high res, but down convert nearly all to cd quality at 16/44.1. I've dropped a few things right to a thumb drive and brought them home to evaluate the mix, shows right up at 24/96....
I realize the petty is talking about studios, but I just can't imagine pro's using anything less.... Unless they are still stocking reel to reel as masters..... I doubt it.

So what Petty - what of all the studios that record in 24/192 and downsample to the 16/44 on your CDs? Somewhere in your latest wandering diatribe there must be a point.

The point was that Chadeffect said a mouthful, when he
said "It is the Music that matters". I believe the
Studios refer to DXD as the Format that is higher sampling
Rate than DSD. Most Music is still stored on Master Analog
tape, which are deteriorating. DXD is a process of transfering these to multi-track mixing console in DXD
higher sampling format. They can then be Remastered using
the DXD process. That doesn't mean upsampling, or downsampling. That means Remastering in the digital domain
in each track of DXD. "I can't imagine Pro's using anything
less...."? ??? DXD is higher sampling rate than 24/192, it is even higher than DSD. They would have to downsample it
to 24/192, or DSD. Not only is DXD a higher sampling rate,
it is used as higher sampling rate for multi-tracks.
As far as wandering diatribe, "It is the Music that matters" counts far more than "Soon all new Music will only be available as Music Downloads". High Quality sounding Music "Matters" more with multi-Formats as opposed to just one. All Formats suffer from badly recorded Music, and many benefit from well recorded Music. Remastering can help, but no guarantee it will sound better, if not worse. In this regard some might prefer the untainted version in its original Format. You lose this access converting to strictly Downloading Format only. Take the best of CD, SACD, MLP, DVD-Audio, Vinyl, and yes Computer Audio Downloads, as well as High Res. Downloads. Every Format is going to have more than its share of screw-ups. Take the cream of the crop from each Format, instead of just exclusively one. You will have a hell of allot more cream that way. That is how you make "Music that Matters". You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in severely limiting yourself to only one possible source (Format) of well recorded Music. It will be a whole lot less cream with a severely limited crop of only one Format. As far as large Music selection of well recorded Music, one man (Format) traveling band just wouldn't provide it. Only when you prove it otherwise (Way Larger
Selection) are you ready then to concider a single Format option. I sense a rush to panic in this rapid acceleration to a single Format option, without making sure that L-A-R-G-E Selection is available for everyone. Forcing many to lose their favorite Music does not serve "It is the Music that Matters". Couldn't be anymore clearer than that! There
seems to be alot of fear that as Computer Audio takes off,
it needs to be written in stone via the market eliminating
all other Audio Formats. What I don't get is this level of
insecurity. It makes me feel like I should be nervous about
Computer Audio- should I be? If you are really secure about this Format, other Formats being around shouldn't even be a concern. Why the huge concern? Do you understand the huge concern at the possible premature elimination of all other Audio Formats, and statements to the same? I prefer to keep my options open, and I stand up to those who
wish to eliminate my options. If this makes no sense
what-so-ever, so be it. Let it be!

Pettyofficer, I have to say, last post was pretty well written. I'm not sure how accurate all the studio info was, but point taken. The point that I cannot take is all the hype about the insecurity of all the other formats and writing it as though all of us want those formats to go away... any format that has merit, will stay. I really feel (no offense intended) that all EVERYONE is asking you is "why all the paranoia of formats failing"? We are all open minded toward other formats and as I had written previously, I believe anyone on this thread would try another if it had merit.