Martin Walker wrote:However, I rather went off them when they started releasing more expensive 24-bit digital downloads alongside the standard 16-bit versions. I simply find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of listeners would be able to hear any difference on already mastered output :headbang:
It would be interesting to do a null comparison and see what additional audio information is contained in those bottom eight bits. I'm betting on exclusively noise -- ambient room noise, electronic noise, or dither noise.... :lol:
I only read Hi-Fi News and Record Review
when I'm on a train journey these days -- the hi-fi world is just too bonkers for monthly outings... but their tech reviews are still very good, and one of the regular sections is a review of the latest download releases -- most of which are 24/96 or higher sample rates. They always publish spectrograms of these downloads, and its interesting/disturbing/disappointing to see how many are either up-sampled from base rates, or have obvious technical problems in the ultrasonic region.
Thankfully, I suppose, no one can hear these problems and no one tests for them, so the record companies can get away with it most of the time... But the punters still insist the sonic value of their 192kHz nonsense... :headbang:
I've said it here before... it is highly educational to invest in a simple 'bat detector' and then go take a listen to the 30-60kHz spectrum in the recording venue. It's frightening how many 'whistles' and hoe much noisy stuff there is from LCD screens, SMPS power supplies, lighting systems, and other stuff... Thank goodness the microphones mostly roll-off above 15-20kHz... :D