4 ms·

I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to a

I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.

bayindirh 3y ago
I have a 24bit WAV version of Radiohead's "OK Computer Oknotok" directly from the band, and sounds absolutely beautiful, though I don't remember whether it's 48K or 96K. In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either. I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there. Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears. Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?