> IASA TC04 Ver 2 says the archival standard is
> 48/24 but higher rates may
> be beneficial for many program types.
As always there´s lots of speculations and no carefully done listening tests
of any kind.
We can all have our own opinon and those working professionally around me,
studios, mobile recording operations recording classical music etc have all
stated that while there´s maybe some slight difference using higher sample
rate then they have all gone back to 48/24 as nobody will hear the
difference if any.
But anytime there is a very carefully done test using very good equipment
then almost everyone cannot hear any difference whatsoever.
So far I have not seen any competently done test that shows there is any
difference at all in almost all cases read so far.
I myself have done several hundred such comparisions and are quite content
to use 44/24 and properly done wordlenght reductions shows the only
difference between 44/16 and 44/24 is slight hiss at -93 db F/S in the 44/16
Or use: http://tinyurl.com/ctxxgfz
To read about a VERY carefully done comparision between 176/24 and DSD and
the experts are consistent in their inability to hear any difference at all.
Now if any of you disagrees then I would suggest that you set up your own
tests to prove if there really is an audible difference in competently
designed and executed 44/16 files from anything "better".
We all know, I hope, that everything below 20 kHz in 44/24 is identical in
192/24 and that the difference between 16 and 24 bits is -93 dB/FS noise
compared to -144 dB noise when properly using dither.
But then it truly IS important to claim "High Resolution" whatever that
truly means in practice.
It sounds soooo goood really impressive....... :-)
The Mastering Room AB
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
make them all yourself. - John Luther