Originally Posted By: AudioTrack
Originally Posted By: musocity
This guy is talking blasphemy, he says computers are are fast enough and storage is big enough these days to handle greater than 44.1khz.

I watched the video, and I believe that I understood the content and the intent, but I don't follow why you suggested that he 'is talking blasphemy' (presuming you used it in the sense of an insult that shows contempt, disrespect). Could you clarify that part for me please?

Because it's simply not true what he's saying, it's blasphemous, see below for an explanation. That's why I still use 32bit Biab wma and JBridge, all the rest is marketing hype. WMA is a standard format that I can use in any audio app, look at the file size below compared to wav and 24bit 48khz wavepack, wma is the best option, it's nice and small and sounds good to me, isn't that why Microsoft made this ? OMG if I could still purchase the DOS version I would have it made.
wma 6.6meg (Winner)
wav 44/16 72meg (loser)
wav 48/24 118meg (loser)
wavepack 48/24 61meg (loser)

Originally Posted By: PeterGannon
- There are many audio expert articles on the internet showing that, for distributing audio, 44.KHz 16 bit (which we use) is equal to higher bit rates like 24 bit. 48khz etc.
- of course in a DAW you bring in these files and edit them in a higher bit rate environment (24 bit, 96KHz etc), but once they’re finished editing and complete, shipping 24 bit files vs 16bit is no better. No detectable difference heard by audiophiles in the tests done.
-of course we record and mix them in higher bit depth, I’m just referring to how they are shipped after they are finalized.

- based on that, I don’t see any benefit for us to be switching the audiophile version from 16bit to 24bit, and we don’t plan to.


Attached Files (Click to download or enlarge) (Only available when you are logged in)
BB23-wma-wv.png (12.29 KB, 138 downloads)