OT: 24/192 - Is It Worthwhile?

**mah** · June 2nd, 2013, 10:32 PM

Or is it a waste of your money?

This article makes the latter point with reasons: 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

**Old Guy** · June 3rd, 2013, 05:49 AM

I keep harping about a system approach. Too many spend all their money on one item. An expensive amp with crap speakers will sound worse than a cheap amp with good speakers. Good is not always expensive. An old set of Dynaco speakers for less than $100 is better than some $1000 + sets.

If you can get 98% performance for 50% of the price, is it worth the extra to get the last 2%? It becomes an individual question not a blanket statement...

**Alien_Shore** · June 3rd, 2013, 10:03 AM

WAV rips of decently engineered CDs are fine for me - it's how I store/listen to all my music. It goes to OG's comments about holistic approach - get some good source material, good DAC, good amp, good speakers. Nothing has to be outrageous, although you can spend a lot to get those extra percentages of improvement.

**Altec Best** · June 3rd, 2013, 02:13 PM

I also agree with OG. 24/192 is studio quality so is 24/92.I can tell very little difference between the 2. IMO the biggest difference I can tell is in the upper HF region.But obviously the higher the bit rates and sample rates the better the recording/files should be...But to acheive that extra 2% is unnecessary IMHO.

I have both 24/96 and 24/192 with the majority being 24/96.I think what is more important is starting with a high quality source tape/LP recording in the first place.

**mah** · June 3rd, 2013, 08:52 PM

I agree on the system approach. The author makes a case for 16bit/44.1kHz processing being all that is needed for playback. This is easily achieved at low prices with modern players.

**alancohen** · June 3rd, 2013, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by mah

I agree on the system approach. The author makes a case for 16bit/44.1kHz processing being all that is needed for playback. This is easily achieved at low prices with modern players.

His argument is based on the premise that we can measure what makes music sound like music far better that the human ear can hear it. I am not sure this is true.

**mah** · June 3rd, 2013, 09:54 PM

I think the capabilities of the ear are well defined. It is the aural/mind processing that is more contentious.

**Altec Best** · June 4th, 2013, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by mah

I agree on the system approach. The author makes a case for 16bit/44.1kHz processing being all that is needed for playback. This is easily achieved at low prices with modern players.

I can hear a big difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96, it's just the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 that is hard to tell the difference for me.