3 ms·
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. The
by JohnBooty 9y ago
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.
- ladzoppelin 9y agoBut 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.
- aw3c2 9y agoYes, but this is about Music Downloads.
- JohnBooty 9y agoOf 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.