I recently downloaded a recording (FLAC) which was 24b/192kHz. The files were pretty huge. It got me thinking. Is there a point of diminishing return? If you keep pushing the bit rate and sample rate higher and higher theoretically you should get a better and better result, but is there a point where that’s no longer true?

I would guess it would depend on the nature of the music being recorded, type of equipment used for recording & playback, etc.

If you recorded a concert with an Edirol with a single mic, your ears may not be able to tell the difference at some point.

If you had a HI RES copy of Van Halen I , you would notice a difference compared to just a CD.

Neil Young released music a few years back in very high resolution, claiming the inferiority of the CD.

All digital music is a mere sampling. Vinyl & Analog Tape are where it’s at.

I think it’s all about what you can differentiate. Personally, I don’t think my hearing is good enough to tell the difference once you get beyond CD resolution. But as Mojo said, the type of music probably makes a difference.

However, if you are going to be doing any editing, or manipulating of the audio, then you’ll really want the extra resolution (IMO).

Like Ron said, it’s good to have higher resolution audio for editing. DVD audio is higher quality than CD audio, BLU-RAY audio is higher quality than DVD audio, etc.

As technologies evolve, the higher the quality of the original source audio the better. When CDs first came out, they used the disclaimer

” The music on this Compact Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible,

the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape.”

Well, we’ve all heard of 16-bit/44.1kHz, which is kinda standard now-a-days. I’ve also seen 24-bit/48kHz, 24-bit/96kHz and 24-bit/192kHz. I’m just thinking at what point is it overkill and what could the future hold. In the future could there be 48-bit/360kHz? Would it make any sense? The human ear may not be able to even hear the difference anymore but is it measurable?

I agree with what everyone has said and yes the source and the playback make a difference. It may also be theoretical but it was interesting to think about.

Thank you all for the excellent comments.

Personally, I’ve heard music as high as 24-bit/96kHz. I don’t know how much better 24-192 sounds.

That seems to be the cut off point for high res music files – at least what is made available.

Overall, the human ear won’t notice a difference, but there may be ‘parts’ of a piece of music that may

stand out a bit more. Is it due to the audio resolution alone, the mastering / remastering process or a

combination of both ? Curious what the video equivalent of 48-bit/360kHz would be ? 256K TV’s ?

What is the cut off point of the human eye in terms of resolution ?

Maybe also consider your age… Our 20 year old ears work much better than our 50 year old ears.

I still hear just as good now as I did when I was 20. There are teenagers that couldn’t tell the difference between an

MP3 & HI-RES Flac file. Another thing – if you listen with headphones, your experience will be different.

The higher quality headphones will give you better sound.Same goes for speakers & the type of environment you are in.

I always thought mp3s sounded fine. I read 128kb was “near” CD quality. I encoded everything at 160kb. This was back in the ’99/2000 time frame. Then I did a side-by-side comparison. I listened to the same song as an mp3 (various bit rates) and the uncompressed version. I was surprised how much I could tell the difference.

I don’t know if I could hear the difference between 16-bit/44.1kHz, 24-bit/48kHz, 24-bit/96kHz and 24-bit/192kHz but maybe if I did a side-by-side comparison, maybe I could. Maybe the system playback would make a difference. Maybe I couldn’t, who knows.

I just wonder if there is a point of diminishing return. The higher the bit rate, the higher the sample rate, theoretically the better the sound quality. But in reality is there a point where it really doesn’t? Will you keep getting bigger file sizes but no better sound quality or worse sound quality?

Surprisingly, I’ve heard some music at 128k & 160k that sounded pretty good – granted it was stuff recorded in the 60′s.

I would agree that there would be diminishing return at some point.

Wonder what some audio engineers or recording studio junkies would have to say on the matter.