View Single Post
Old 17th April 2003
KMR Audio
Rab's Avatar

Originally posted by BrianT
I disagree with that logic. It's only a better recording to me if I can notice the difference, and then if I prefer that difference. And I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that I cannot hear some of the differences that people assume "should" be there, based only upon a number.
I'm not challenging you on a creative or artistic level - purely on a technical one. This is equivalent to digital photography - the more pixels you have in the frame, the better a representation of reality it is. End of story.

I'm also not disputing whether you can hear the difference or not... for most recordings, I know that I couldn't tell the difference either. But where I know I can tell the difference is in material with a wide dynamic range - ie. recordings with a lot of high-energy and very low level material. This has to make sense... convertor information is less likely to be accurate at the low-level bits - the more bits and higher resolution you have down there, the greater the chance of your recording reflecting the analogue signal that fed your convertor.

I just wonder whether 24/96 recordings will sound inherently better when a successor to CD arrives compared to 16/44? And isn't it worth considering the implications of how the recording will be heard in the (not too distant?) future when printing material now?

Ultimately, I'm guessing we'd both agree that a great performance competently recorded and engineered at "low resolution" (whatever you judge that to be) is a far more rewarding experience for everyone than a pile of pap recorded at X-bits and Y-kHz.