magiccarpetride;585425 Wrote: > (Phil here claims that it's a more sophisticated ability to master the > raw recordings if done in the 24-bit/96 kHz medium; maybe that's it, > maybe not, I'm not so sure).
I don't believe there is much dispute within the recording industry with this thought, particularly as regards multitrack mixing and effects. This becomes particularly evident if one track includes a significant level boost when it is mixed with other tracks. The 24/96 is going to do a better job than 16/44.1 or 16/48 of keeping the noise level low. However, people playing back commercially released music in their own home don't have an opportunity to remix the original master. Just because 24/96 serves a very useful purpose in the recording studio doesn't automatically mean it has the same level of importance in a home playback setting. I think one of the problems with audiophile forums is people get too caught up in the specific theoreticals of the storage format when what we're really complaining about is the choices made by the artist, engineer and producer in the production process. Those issues are several orders of magnitude larger than format differences. I would far, far prefer an ordinary Redbook CD with great microphones in well chosen positions and minimal editing and processing to a 24/96 recording done with the heavy hand that seems so popular today. -- mlsstl ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
