> On Thursday 18 November 2010 23:10:03 Fabio wrote:
> > Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 20:05:27, você escreveu:
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:28:04PM -0200, Fabio wrote:
> > > > Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 18:37:30,
fons@kokkinizita.net
> escreveu:
> > > > > For these tests the authors used 'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
> > > > > (mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
> > > > > or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
> > > > > transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
> > > > > emerged from this:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
> > > > > reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
> > > > > versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
> > > > > other versions of the same music released on CD.
> > > >
> > > > well, you sure loose quality downsampling to 16bit, that's what they
> > > > heard
> > >
> > > On the contrary, the test showed that the listeners could *not* hear
> > > the difference.
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> >
> > well I refered to Number 2 as 1 + 2 say diferent things
>
> Number two said that different styles of recording (mic-placement, room-
> acoustics and mixing) made a difference, while number one says that there is no
> difference between 192kHz (and probably 24bit or 32bit) and 44.1kHz/16bit.
>
> Given the fact that nowadays most consumer soundcards work with 48kHz
> internally and re-sample anything else, its save to stay with 48kHz for
> recording and online-publishing.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Arnold
>