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. 


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.
if you’re saying you prefer Hi-res to standard red book then surely you would have to compare like with like.
I started with 24/192 files and used dBPoweramp to make copies at 16/44, 24/44, 24/96. I made a few mistakes at first but then successfully distinguished 16/44 and 24/44 ten times in a row at which point I was satisfied that I could tell the difference. But my ability to distinguish the various sample rates with 24-bit files was no better than flipping a coin. YMMV.

I get why the industry pushes so called Hi-res , HD , MQA and what have you , their honest right ? I mean all this for the love of music in a modern repackaged form.
What makes 50 plus year old recordings let alone a recording made 5 years ago Hi-Resolution , marketing. 

I enjoy the convenience of streaming as much as the next guy and my favourite CDs ripped I enjoy them more now then I ever have at any other time do to a much better digital front end.

Finally I mentioned above some recent recordings done by Tonian Labs , the overall quality and stunning realism of these recordings fly in the face of everything offered today in these repackaged forms though many of the known uncompressed recordings I’ve listened to some come close however none so far equal Tony Mansians recordings and I’m still looking.

We have what we have and the industry will do what it’s best at ,keep selling .