I recently downloaded a recording (FLAC) which was 24b/192kHz. The files were pretty huge. It got me thinking. Is there a point of diminishing return? If you keep pushing the bit rate and sample rate higher and higher theoretically you should get a better and better result, but is there a point where that’s no longer true?
I think it’s all about what you can differentiate. Personally, I don’t think my hearing is good enough to tell the difference once you get beyond CD resolution. But as Mojo said, the type of music probably makes a difference.
However, if you are going to be doing any editing, or manipulating of the audio, then you’ll really want the extra resolution (IMO).
Like Ron said, it’s good to have higher resolution audio for editing. DVD audio is higher quality than CD audio, BLU-RAY audio is higher quality than DVD audio, etc.
As technologies evolve, the higher the quality of the original source audio the better. When CDs first came out, they used the disclaimer
” The music on this Compact Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible,
the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape.”
When you turn on your stereo, does it return the favor?
Well, we’ve all heard of 16-bit/44.1kHz, which is kinda standard now-a-days. I’ve also seen 24-bit/48kHz, 24-bit/96kHz and 24-bit/192kHz. I’m just thinking at what point is it overkill and what could the future hold. In the future could there be 48-bit/360kHz? Would it make any sense? The human ear may not be able to even hear the difference anymore but is it measurable?
I agree with what everyone has said and yes the source and the playback make a difference. It may also be theoretical but it was interesting to think about.
I always thought mp3s sounded fine. I read 128kb was “near” CD quality. I encoded everything at 160kb. This was back in the ’99/2000 time frame. Then I did a side-by-side comparison. I listened to the same song as an mp3 (various bit rates) and the uncompressed version. I was surprised how much I could tell the difference.
I don’t know if I could hear the difference between 16-bit/44.1kHz, 24-bit/48kHz, 24-bit/96kHz and 24-bit/192kHz but maybe if I did a side-by-side comparison, maybe I could. Maybe the system playback would make a difference. Maybe I couldn’t, who knows.
I just wonder if there is a point of diminishing return. The higher the bit rate, the higher the sample rate, theoretically the better the sound quality. But in reality is there a point where it really doesn’t? Will you keep getting bigger file sizes but no better sound quality or worse sound quality?
