42low wrote:If you have 16/44 you never ever can deliver 24/96. Once lower you can never go back up.
well, you can resample and add empty bits, but you are right that you can't regenerate information that is lost.
42low wrote:How to deliver to those with 'superhearing' who demand 24/96 flac?
EDIT: I just realized you are probably not agreeing they have superhearing only trying to deliver what they want. Still I think they should be educated about why you don't provide useless bits.
Previous response: Now hold on there a second. Did you read the article? It pretty clearly states that there is no such thing as superhearing. Those who demand such listening material are flat out wrong and NO appropriately conducted study has ever been able to prove otherwise.
42low wrote:My personal opinion.
24/96 recordings and projects have more information inside than 16/44.
Effects done over those recordings will also be done over 'more information', so IMO will be deeper in sound. Clearer.
And my gear can handle it, so why should i do less?
They do have more information but that extra information is useless for human ears. Its useful for keeping fidelity through various processes like summing/mixing signals where noise adds together and can reduce SNR or waveshaping which can cause aliasing. Aliasing can be prevented by upsampling before the waveshaping or other non-linear process and downsampling immediately after. This upsample/downsample will typically be less overhead than doing all processing at a higher samplerate. Also any signal can still alias, and if you have information above human hearing, and do a naive waveshaping process on it (and many plugins don't do much testing at 96kz) then you could have worse aliasing. To do something like waveshaping, you should filter out any high frequency data that would alias before the process anyway. So if you are removing all that ultra-sonic frequency information anyway, why carry it around?
But i know. I'm on another recording forum were they worship and advice 16/44 too and there they are totally closed for other options and will never give in (as encountered). So i know many use those settings. This discussion turns up regularly.
Man i've laught about those discussions so many times.
*rofl* They buy tons off gear for tons of money. All must be 'the best'. Must have 'the best' and most expencive condensor mics on the market. All for 'the deep and wide sound'. And they they are going to produce in low quality compressing that quality. How stupid.
And when i attended them on the contradiction of their vision they don't like it (and me
) at all. Strange, isn't it?
All can do what they want, but i record in 32f/96. Release each song in different qualities and file types to fulfil everyone's wishes. And i save and store my projects in 32/96 without
compression or dithering for later use.
Thats cool, do what you like, and you are of course welcome here, but there IS science to this, and I'm going to promote the scientific facts.
Actually its not even science, its just math.