On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 00:43, RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 19-Jun-2004 RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > } On 19-Jun-2004 Pete Bessman wrote: > } } Meh, I can't tell the difference. I've yet to hear a compelling > } } argument for preferring anything more than 16bit/44.1k. Personal > } } opinions abound, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." > } > } It sounds better? > > I suppose that should have specified "it"... 24/96 sounds significantly better. I suspect that 24/48 would sound just as 'better'. Going from 16 to 24 bits makes sense, but from 48 to 96 does not. It is 100% marketing. Just google for 'nyquist frequency', then look up what the range of human hearing is. "Hmm, as long as we're going to increase the file size by 50% to achieve a worthwhile goal, might as well double it again for no reason." The engineers want to go 24 bit, and the 96 thing gets slapped on by the marketing department. It's Dilbertian. Lee
