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

At David, please don’t get the demonic gingerbread man wound up, he might get abusive 🙄

What a dork! Hey, good news! You have ESP. 😳

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.. :)