Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Lesurf[_2_]
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.
|
I can't bring myself to allocate over a gigabyte of storage space to a single-CD album. 24-bit 96kHz albums seem to average just under a gigabyte which suits me fine. This aspect, and the fact I was willing to convert my 24-bit 192kHz files to 24-bit 96kHz, allowed me to change my first 24-bit 192kHz network audio player for one which has a maximum 24-bit 96kHz playback. Truth be told, until participating in this thread, I would've quite happily converted my files to 16-bit 48kHz if I had to and not thought any more about it.
I'd much rather a good quality production and master of a 24-bit 96kHz album, than a 24-bit 192kHz album of poor quality. Shame someone decided it was easier to sell numbers than improved quality. I would've preferred the better quality no matter what numbers were associated with the file. Maybe that's a giveaway when thinking about the relevant skills within the industry. To fall back on the public's lack of knowledge seems a bit defeatist and insecure to me. That said, I guess we do tend to believe anything we're told and spend our money accordingly.
Fortunately, I have such appalling taste in music none of this probably matters a great deal anyway.