Tim S Kemp wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Absolutely not the case. Given good implementations of all three, the
sound will be *identical*. BTW, it's more like 93-94 dB for properly
implemented 16-bit digital, because of that essential dither.


The problem with all this is you're saying 16, 24, 32 bit, 44, 48, 96, 192
khz will all sound the same.

For an end user yes. Id say that 16/44 and 24/96 might just sound
noticeably different but beyond that no way.

So 8 bit 44khz is fine too? or 12 bit?

no. 8 bit is not good enough. 12 is approaching it but not quite.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not after a "my bits are better than your bits"
assault here, and much of the stuff I listen to is compressed (in both
senses of the word) anyway. But it is just damned wrong to say that the
difference between a 24/96 and a 16/44 recording is none at all.

To the end user, no its not better. if you're mixing the sound it helps
to have a more detailed source to begin with so as not to lose
definition during processing.

I'm sure a few moments with some test gear would show the output will not be
identical. Personally I'm not inclined to even bother trying.

audibly indistingushable and identical arent the same.