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. 


Funny anytime I want to dazzle the crap out of someone I put on one of Tony Minasians’s of Tonian Labs recordings . Usually Drums & Bells , 15 seconds into the first cut they are usually absolutely dumb founded commenting never listened to anything recorded sound so realistic.
Whats so special about these recorderings , nothing other then some modifications to his impressive collection of recording microphones these recordings are shocking realistic sounding to say the least .
For $20.00 listen for yourself ,

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!

Still, I like the idea of higher sample rate, so 24/96 seems like a good standard. Moreover, the higher sampling rates offer greater choices in playback filtering:
On the other hand, by the time you get to quad-rate sampling (176.4 kHz or 192 kHz), the compromises are practically non-existent. One can have flat frequency response to 40 kHz or 50 kHz, and still have a filter with little or no ringing (in the case of the moving-average filter).

I have 6TB of 96/24 and 192/24 FLAC files of music. and more than 1000 44.1K/16bit CDs. I will always prefer HiRes. However, I enjoy all of them. Music is music.

"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.