Letto su un altro forum.
Concordo pienamente, per me i 24/96 sono + che sufficienti!
Scritto da Monty, sviluppatore del codec OGG una interessante argomentazione che va contro i famosi 24/192
Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space.
There are a few real problems with the audio quality and 'experience' of digitally distributed music today. 24/192 solves none of them. While everyone fixates on 24/192 as a magic bullet, we're not going to see any actual improvement.
MI: What sampling frequency is enough? Some say that even 44 khz 16 bit is good if mastered well, other say that 24bit and 96khz is more than enough, and again third camp say that only 192 khz (DSD) or even more would bring the quality of analogue or natural timber to life.
DW: For the human hearing 44.1/16 is enough. For technical reasons it is advantageous to go with higher sampling rates. 88.2 or 96 would be fine. Anything higher does not make much sense in my opinion. The advantages of higher sampling rates (higher than 44.1) are that the filters in the A/D and D/A Converters can be made less demanding and thus less colouring. For the processing of digital audio, which is necessary during e.g. the mastering process, it is advantageous to have high sampling rates as well.
MI: How are the 192 khz recordings? Does so much information bring us closer to the original recordings and are there more problems due to the increase of content?
BK: I have not had enough experience with 192 kHz to say. I like the results I'm getting at 96 K, and in my book I make a convincing argument that it is the converter design that counts far more than the sample rate. We have always known that a well-designed 44.1 kHz converter sounds much better than a mediocre 96 kHz model. And this has always been true. I believe that a good designer will be able to make a 96K converter that sounds as good as anything at a higher rate. But designers are getting lazy, and it is cheaper and easier to get a good sound at a higher rate because the filters are less complex and easier to design. There is nothing magic about the higher rates; it's not the higher frequencies that we're hearing, but rather, more linear performance from 20-20 kHz! Keep that in mind... We really should be labeling converters by their resolution, not by their sample rate.
Posizione simile di Dan Lavry
Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions. While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are further disadvantages:
1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage and data
transmission speed requirements).
2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio industry salesmen have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Whether motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true.