Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
My experience is that the info above 22050 Hz is largely
irrelevant.
The comments below completely invalidate the above.
The things that 24/96 and 24/192 bring to the
party are better image specificity, smoother
high-frequency reproduction (5K -up to the limits of
audibility-whatever they might be for the individual
listener), better low-level and ambience detail.
There's no reason to believe that high sampling rates than 44.1 KHz have
*any* effect, either measured or heard, on imaging, ambience, or low level
detail.
If all the DBT tests associated with so-called hi-res audio are
concerned with, or largely confined to the effects of the
ultrasonic performance on the actual tonal balance, or
other frequency-response related issues, then those
constructing these tests are, IMHO, barking up the wrong
tree by listening for the wrong things in their tests.
Given the vast number of DBTs comparing higher sample rates to 16/44 that
have been done with the null outcomes, there simply is no contrary opinion
that is humble. Besides, there is no reason to weigh this issue based on
opinion when reliable, factual information is so easy to obtain.
|