In article , John R Leddy
wrote:


'Jim Lesurf[_2_ Wrote:
;94188']Given that it is now easy to record and playback 96k/24 this
means it is now easy to simply avoid and forget such 'risks' as
downsampling and upsampling along the way.So we really do want the bitdepth and sampling rate as used in the
studio. I was hoping to avoid 24-bit 192kHz files.

FWIW I've never felt that going as far as 192k/24 made much sense for home
replay. 96k/24 seems a convenient 'compromise' to me given the use of
decent replay equipment. But YMMV.

It is perhaps worth pointing out to people that if you covert to flac you
will usually find that the resulting 96k/24 file is *not* twice as big as a
48k/24 flac from the same source.

In general there isn't a lot in the ultrasonic region, and the flac
compression can take advantage of this.

The main difference tends to be that there are more bits devoted to 'noise'
in 24bit than 16bit. And flac will faithfully keep those details.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html