News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by JohnBooty on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @08:06AM (#15131405)
Right, absolutely. 16 bit samples give 100db+ of perceived dynamic range, more than would ever be needed.

The other poster is not saying otherwise, though. They're just saying that "hi-def" formats, while technically unnecessary for end-user listening, are often the only way to obtain a decently-mastered recording.

There's no technical reason for things to be that way. But that's how things are.

It's sort of like buying a new car. You want the more powerful engine? Well then you also have to buy the package with heated seats, the moonroof, and the fog lights. There's no technical reason for it, but that's the only way they'll sell it to you.

Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by ladzoppelin on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @01:24PM (#15134061)
But there is a technical reason for them as the tools used to master/make music work better at the higher formats. Its not "superstition" its digital audio.
Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by JohnBooty on Saturday September 02, 2017 @08:47AM (#15155699)
Of course. That's why I specifically said "end-user listening."

It's also what this entire discussion's about.

Of course formats above 44.1/16 are useful for professional work; nobody's ever said otherwise. Just like graphics professionals work with high-res images and lossless formats even if the end product is a .jpg on a web page.

Re:24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed (2012) by aw3c2 on Wednesday August 30, 2017 @02:35PM (#15134723)
Yes, but this is about Music Downloads.