> It's a controversial issue, so be prepared to encounter many different > opinions. Yeah! >From a practical standpoint, I believe that 192 is only rarely needed. > 96 should be just as good. It is not likely that the situation is going > to change in the near future. So you're talking about a possible switch from consumer equipment to higher bitdepths/frequencies? > You need extremely high-quality (and extremely expensive) components in > your audio chain to exploit the difference between 192 and 96. You also > need very good mixing and mastering skills in order to stay at the top > of the quality ladder. Yeah... Law of diminishing returns at work? As for the mastering I'm wondering if it's worth it to get really good at it myself or if that's a lot like learning another musical instrument and best left to the pros. (Not meaning people who band together in 'professional organizations' but people who do it a lot :) > I would be much more worried about the bit depth - use 24bit instead of > 16 whenever possible throughout the processing chain. I would assume using 32bit is similar in how much 'bang for the buck' you get than using 192 kHz? Thanks a lot for sharing, Florin, appreciate your insights and differentiated response! Carlo
