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
No, VI, it actually does not. It tracks with a group of people, particularly with audiophiles, but anyone who has rented a car, invariably to find the bass cranked, knows that all musical tastes are not the same, nor are all listening environments the same.  All the database reveals, for the 4th time is decisions made at recording, NOT the format, not even what the preference of the majority of the populace likes.


Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion of whether 24/96 is enough?  Do you even understand that that is what this thread is about?

I think we can all assume that since one of the great "proponents" of subjective evaluation can't offer anything in this area that refutes 24/96 being enough, then we can assume it is.  Thanks for clarifying that VI.

geoffkait18,612 posts11-29-2019 5:27pmThe funny thing is the data in the dynamic range database tracks (no pun intended) perfectly with listening results. But atdavid would rather fight than listen.

The defense is being argumentative and badgering the witness. The prosecution rests. 
All I have to say is, I’ll get rid of my vinyl LPs when digital media gets to 128 bit, 4.4 MHz. That’s when the resolution/sampling approaches the infinite resolution of analog, with its zero samples/second music information.

Joke or no joke, Messieurs Nyquist, Shannon and Monty comment like this:

The most common misconception is that sampling is fundamentally rough and lossy. A sampled signal is often depicted as a jagged, hard-cornered stair-step facsimile of the original perfectly smooth waveform. If this is how you envision sampling working, you may believe that the faster the sampling rate (and more bits per sample), the finer the stair-step and the closer the approximation will be. The digital signal would sound closer and closer to the original analog signal as sampling rate approaches infinity.

However, the truth is:

All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required. Sampling doesn’t affect frequency response or phase. The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal.