Make sense 24/192?

Hi friends, I just read this article
Talk about it makes no sense to use FLAC at more resolution than 16/44.1
It’s written by Chris Montgomery, creator of Ogg and Vorbis, something you should know …
Do you know any articles written by someone with similar knowledge who defend the files of 24/192?


These type of discussions are never ending :slight_smile: Fact is the limitation of the human ears and probably each individual ‘hears’ a little different from the other.

My personal standing:

  • use lossless encodings like FLAC so there is no need for ’ guessing’ by the decoder to add any missing bits
  • look for quality source material. Each time a recording is re-sampled to a lower/higher/different resolution, things can get ‘poluted’
  • look at your full audio chain and see what resolution(s) fits best and needs the ‘least’ amount of work/translations

I guess there is no single right answer :slight_smile:

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

True, the discussion is never over. It strikes me that I have not yet found an article as deep as the one that defends the option 24/192 or the new DSD formats.

In my opinion (see my 2nd point above) we will see more and more ‘distributors’ release higher resolution material which are as close as possible to the resolution during the recording/mastering.

In the past, CD’s (and SACD) were the highest quality mainstream distrubution technology. And deemed sufficient (as your article explains).

But as nowadays studio are recording in DSD or DXD (and using MQA), it makes sense to ‘just’ release it in the recorded resolution and let any needed down-sizing be done at the reproduction end (the player) in the way that fits best for the given situation.

Hopefully we will soon see record-labels that put quality releases of quality recordings as a strong selling point :slight_smile:

As a Qobuz user, I look for pieces of music in which information about the recording is available to validate that effort is put in creating quality source material.

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

I think it mostly depends on source and mastering.

Many international CDs suffer from bad mastering while i.e. many Japanese labels deliver unprecedented quality for even 1960’s recordings in CD format. Todays software and A/D converters are pretty good.

While I think many recordings benefit from 24bit in terms of detail/texture/whatever you want to call it, I’m not too sure about the 192kHz. If I was to record something, I’d probably go 24/96 just to be on the safe side and because HDD space is cheap.

As for formats: I’d try go for the format the digital recording was made in and avoid conversions like DSD to PCM. I don’t think DSD is superior but avoiding a potentially lossy conversion before DAC-output makes most sense to me. If you don’t have a capable DAC, conversion will do of course. If the music sounds right to your ears, why bother?

As i goes in audio certain truths may have a Butt. The information provided is true but that is not the reason to up-sample. Let me add that it makes no sense to go from 16 to 24 bits as you cant grow information so stay at the original 16 bits. However The digital sampling rate relies on an analog filter to smooth out the sampling. Acoustic Filters cause phase shift and acoustic smearing. using a 44 khz filter will change phase in the audio band so by sampling at 192 khz we cause these effects to be well away from the audio band. the fine people working on this project have provided a great way to do this and the file size does not change. it is called up-sampling and is done " on the fly" it takes your 16/44 and up samples to 16/192 then filters it and puts it out as analog. Most new high end Dacs do this by default as it is easier to build / optimize one filter rather than one for each sampling rate. I hope this helps answer your question. :nerd:

Amoxil Side Affects Amoxicillin 500mg