Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Help me put this guy back in his right place (Read 24520 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #50 –
Quote
    Certainly I don't see any 'dross' (not sure if that works grammatically here) about the superiority of one medium over another here, but I myself would be tempted to suggest the DVD-A is probably slightly superior for reasons of equipment price if not SNR.

I have to disagree,  technical superiority is more than just a better SNR. I do not understand the equipment price angle.


NB: dross - worthless commentary

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #51 –
Equipment price angle? Perhaps it's the bit where I can buy a 24/96 recording sound card for <$1000 (probably way less) but a DSD recording and mixing setup will bankrupt me and my family?

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #52 –
Quote
Equipment price angle? Perhaps it's the bit where I can buy a 24/96 recording sound card for <$1000 (probably way less) but a DSD recording and mixing setup will bankrupt me and my family?

okay, but when did the price of a technology determine it's technological superiority, for an extreme example, think of fuel cell engines  and internal combustion engines, you cannot get a fuel cell for less <£1/2 m at present does that make it inferior to the good ol' internal combustion engine.     

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #53 –
Quote
I have to disagree, technical superiority is more than just a better SNR.


  That's all fine and good, but where do you see solid technical superiority in the SACD medium that outweighs the superior SNR of the DVD-A medium?
  Anything anyone can actually hear?
 
  Hypersonic frequency response of a standard SACD playback chain is quite noisy, and desiring frequency response above 96KHz is more than excessive, particularly since precious few people on any given continent possess transduction equipment capable of reproducing frequencies that high, and likely even fewer albums of music have been recorded on equipment that has viable response characteristics up that high.


Quote
Perhaps it's the bit where I can buy a 24/96 recording sound card for <$1000 (probably way less) but a DSD recording and mixing setup will bankrupt me and my family?


    Exactly. You can record to 24/96 with an Audigy 2 or an M-Audio Revolution and pay less than $100.
  You'd want to spend several times that or more to really get a decent piece of gear to master a DVD-A with, of course.
    The LynxTWO  features sampling rates of up to 200KHz, and costs less than $1000.
 
    So, if you can't hear the difference between the two mediums, and the entry-level cost of creating content for one medium is orders of magnitude less than the other, which one do you choose?
    If you're Sony, you choose the one that you hold the most patents for 

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #54 –
Quote
     If you're Sony, you choose the one that you hold the most patents for 

it is always fun to see folks defending DVDA on the basis of money. DVD-A is not free    some fees for DVD technologies these guys want to make money from licensing fees just as much as Sony/Philips.  whatever you cut it, somebody will get your money.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #55 –
Quote
it is always fun to see folks defending DVDA on the basis of money. DVD-A is not free  some fees for DVD technologies these guys want to make money from licensing fees just as much as Sony/Philips. whatever you cut it, somebody will get your money.


While I see that you have a strong emotional investment in the SACD medium, this response is not particularly relevant to what was being discussed.

  What was being discussed was the entry level costs associated with recording or potentially mastering to either medium.

  This cost or recording via DSD is exponentially higher that for DVD-A, meaning the ability to create content in native SACD is limited to only extremely wealthy individuals, or that SACD content is recorded at DVD-A resolutions and then mastered to DSD at a mastering lab.
  Which is pretty funny.   
    I'm sure someone will find an excellent reason why DVD-A resolution content captured to DSD will sound better after being captured than the source itself did.   


  DVD-A is simple 24/192 or 24/96, which can be recorded at readily with fairly inexpensive equipment, almost none of which pays license fees to the DVD-A consortium, because it only involves recording at DVD-A resolutions.
    The issuing label or maybe even the mastering lab may have to pay the DVD-A consortium money, but that is a different situation altogether, akin to the fact that the labels also have to pay to press the medium.

    Surely you wouldn't try to claim because SACD and DVD-A use the same medium and the cost of pressing is the same that this somehow relates to the fact that one cannot record directly to DSD without big money.
edit: fixed italics, clarification

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #56 –
I still think that both SACD and DVD-A are both pointless when you can have multichannel 24/96 Linear PCM on regular DVD Video, and achieve a much higher compatibility (ie. works with all existing DVD video players).

DVD Video supports:

Samplerates: 48khz, 96khz.
Bitdepths: 16, 20, 24.
Channels: 1-8
Bitrate must not exceed 6144mbps.

Audio in DVD (video)

At 48 Khz Nyquist gives you 24khz dynamic range. Few ppl can hear up to 20khz, so you have plenty of headroom for imperfect filters. I think using 48khz instead of 96 is a good space saving option with no loss in perceivable quality.

Problem: resampling is needed from legacy 44.1khz cda.
Advantage: None of the new "copy control" annoyances of both DVD-A and SACD.

I propose people produce their discs at 24/48, 1 ch for mono, 2ch for stereo, and any more channels for anything else (reducing bitdepth when exceeding bitrate as appropiate). Say, Dolby Surround Pro-Logic could be decoded into 3ch, and Pro-Logic II into 4ch.

DVD Video audio has everything we need, and there is no need to waste our time with either DVD-A or SACD with frequencies no one records or hear. Sure we miss the handy lossless compression of DVD-A, but with 4.38gb disc space, how much raw audio can we store at 24/48?

I think some people could even have fun recording multitrack 8ch and burn into DVD-Video (audio only) discs. 8ch at 16/48 or 5ch at 24/48.
She is waiting in the air

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #57 –
Quote
While I see that you have a strong emotional investment in the SACD medium, this response is not particularly relevant to what was being discussed.

  What was being discussed was the entry level costs associated with recording or potentially mastering to either medium.

   This cost or recording via DSD is exponentially higher that for DVD-A, meaning the ability to create content in native SACD is limited to only extremely wealthy individuals, or that SACD content is recorded at DVD-A resolutions and then mastered to DSD at a mastering lab.
   Which is pretty funny.   
    I'm sure someone will find an excellent reason why DVD-A resolution content captured to DSD will sound better after being captured than the source itself did.   


   DVD-A is simple 24/192 or 24/96, which can be recorded at readily with fairly inexpensive equipment, almost none of which pays license fees to the DVD-A consortium, because it only involves recording at DVD-A resolutions.
    The issuing label or maybe even the mastering lab may have to pay the DVD-A consortium money, but that is a different situation altogether, akin to the fact that the labels also have to pay to press the medium.

    Surely you wouldn't try to claim because SACD and DVD-A use the same medium and the cost of pressing is the same that this somehow relates to the fact that one cannot record directly to DSD without big money.
edit: fixed italics, clarification

And you don't have any emotional investment in DVDA    , the introduction of most new technology into the market place comes at a cost, the fact that many studios have chosen to invest in DSD/SACD despite the higher entry costs suggests that the DSD/SACD model is more aligned to their business model than the DVDA model. If the business case of the DVDA is an open and shut one as you try to portray, it will already be a runaway success, however it is not.  The reason for the lower cost of recording at higher resolution is because PCM technology is a more mature technology, that is being around longer, not because it is superior. I am sure that point should be clear since a couple of years ago the cost of the selfsame equipment was much higher.

I think you need to read up on the number of patents held by Toshiba, Warner, JVC, Pioneer, Meridian etc wrt to the DVD related technologies to appreciate why they are desperate for DVDA to succeed. They are certainly not promoting DVDA because they love music and the same applies to Sony/Philips wrt to DSD/SACD

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #58 –
Quote
And you don't have any emotional investment in DVDA


Not at all, I think DVD-A is huge overkill.
I'm not waving my hands trying to rationalize why its superior characteristics are more compelling than SACD's superior characteristics - but that's because I just dont see any superior (technical or audible) characteristics for SACD. Quite frankly, even with my NHT SB-3's I dont think I could tell the media apart (let alone from a CD) provided they were mastered to the same level with the same amount of care.

  Perhaps you'd care, once again, to find some differences in the format you so love to proselytize for?
Quote
the fact that many studios have chosen to invest in DSD/SACD despite the higher entry costs suggests that the DSD/SACD model is more aligned to their business model than the DVDA model.

Many eh? Perhaps you'd care to find market penetration numbers rather than making vague statements.

  What I (and YOU) do know for damn sure, is that anyone who can record to 24/96 or better can make a DVD-A resolution recording with little difficulty. And a very very very large number of studios have this capability.
 
  The number of "studios" (home, semi-pro, commercial and otherwise) with 24/96 or 24/192 recording capability is huge, since this is the standard.

  SACD is a proprietary system that appears to have been sold (and well sold, especially in your case) as being "superior" in some way to traditional high sampling rate 24 bit word recording.
  Of course the fact that you are still here with no more proof of the superiority of the medium rather than "a bunch of studios adopted it", is very telling indeed.

Quote
If the business case of the DVDA is an open and shut one as you try to portray, it will already be a runaway success, however it is not. The reason for the lower cost of recording at higher resolution is because PCM technology is a more mature technology, that is being around longer, not because it is superior. I am sure that point should be clear since a couple of years ago the cost of the selfsame equipment was much higher.


    The DVD-A and SACD mediums have not "taken off" because of the diminishing returns found in investing in them.
    Red book CD audio is very high fidelity if mastered properly, and the vast majority of consumers do not have speakers of the quality necessary to determine the difference between it and other higher resoultion media. This is why higher resolution formats will not take off unless they are hybridized with red book audio CDs.
  Diminishing returns.

  Of course, your point here it totally moot. The number of studios which possess DSD equipment is tiny in comparison to those that possess 24/96 recording gear, primarily because of the entry level cost associated with DSD, and the lack of audible quality improvements inherent in the medium.
  Which of course, was what I was talking about, so please do not attempt to change the subject.

  Again, you are mistaking the success of the format at the consumer level (which in both cases is essentially negligible) with the success of recording equipment able to record at the bit rate and resolutions supported by the format.
  Once again, any fool with several hundred dollars can pick up a Delta 44 or comparable product and record direct to 24/96 or 24/192 and get a really brilliant fidelity product. And many many many do.
    Not so with DSD. Not So at all. The cost associated with recording direct to DSD is huge in comparison (which again, was what was being discussed, not the royalites associated with pressing one or another), which is why all but the wealthiest studios simply do not bother.
   
    Any recording made with 24/96 or 24/192 will not see any improvements whatsoever by being mastered to DSD. Why?
  Because mastering a 24/192 recording to DSD, once again will not result in a higher quality recording than the source.

    Any improvements in quality inherent in the SACD medium can only be found (if they exist, which I see no evidence whatsoever of, and which you have not bothered to present) in direct to DSD recordings or super high resolution analog to DSD recordings.
    Direct to DSD recordings are few and far between, largely as a result of 24/192 gear being exponentially cheaper and sounding for all the world, just as good or better.

  edited for clarity

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #59 –
Quote
I have to disagree,  technical superiority is more than just a better SNR. I do not understand the equipment price angle.

Technical  Superiority

OK - let's just re-wind, and remember that all the "technical superiority" in the world, measured in apples on this side, and oranges on the other, is meaningless unless it matches human hearing.

(I'm in the minority in this forum in believing that there are audible differences between CD-quality audio, DVD-A quality audio, and SACD quality audio.)


You can say with certainty that one format is better in dimension X, and the other is better in dimension Y. But you can't say that the advantage in dimension X leads to a better sound - well, you can say it, but it's pure speculation. It won't be fact until the relevant experiments have been carried out, and the psychoacoustics are understood. At the present time, the psychoacoustic knowledge to make these claims does not exist.


All these facilities world-wide for recording mastering and authoring SACD - how many have had no financial contribution or incentive from Sony? Some, sure, but how many exactly?


DVD-V for audio

DVD-V isn't enough for audio. The navigation isn't properly defined (625/525-line TV displays are not appropriate for selecting tracks for in-car use!), and it does not have lossless packing. 96kHz sampling of material which has little high frequency content comes "for free" (in terms of data rate) with lossless packing. The inability to store 24/96 6-channel on DVD-V is seen as a problem by some record producers. They don't want to compromise their content anymore - they want the listener at home to hear what they hear - they want to deliver the master tape right into your Hi-Fi.

There are also issues with two channel / multi channel mixes - DVD-A allows you to define down-mix coefficients, or to do a separate 2-chanel 24/96 mix - which the lossless encoder then encodes at the same time as the 6-channel mix. The redundancy means that the 94/26 2-channel mix takes up less space than LPCM 44.1/16 material!

Basically, DVD-V is seen as too restrictive for audio. It doesn't allow the data rate or capacity that is needed.


The reason that most people have DVD-V only players is because the DVD forum didn't even think to define an audio standard for DVD. If they had done, and had consulted with the high-end audio community earlier, then everyone would have universal players, and DVD-A would be everywhere by default. As it is, all DVD-A discs can be authored for DVD-V compatibility if required, so DVD-V owners needn't miss out.

There are doubtless marketing, profit, and DRM issues which attract the majors to DVD-A. But the reason it exists is because the most concerned and enthusiastic members of the industry went to the DVD forum and said "we can do much better than DVD-V for audio - let us define DVD-A".

Cheers,
David.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #61 –
If someone had come up with a well-standardized form of high-rez multichannel PCM with no DRM, that can be played by just pushing the play button, it'd trounce both DVD-A and SACD

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #62 –
Quote
If someone had come up with a well-standardized form of high-rez multichannel PCM with no DRM, that can be played by just pushing the play button, it'd trounce both DVD-A and SACD

There's nothing to stop you burning 24/96 FLAC or APE or even WAV files to a DVD-R, and programming your PC to auto play them when the disc is inserted.


However, I don't see that idea trouncing DVD-A or SACD.

Cheers,
Davd.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #63 –
Quote
The number of "studios" (home, semi-pro, commercial and otherwise) with 24/96 or 24/192 recording capability is huge, since this is the standard.

  Red book CD audio is very high fidelity if mastered properly, and the vast majority of consumers do not have speakers of the quality necessary to determine the difference between it and other higher resoultion media. This is why higher resolution formats will not take off unless they are hybridized with red book audio CDs...
...  Not so with DSD. Not So at all. The cost associated with recording direct to DSD is huge in comparison (which again, was what was being discussed, not the royalites associated with pressing one or another), which is why all but the wealthiest studios simply do not bother.
 

Audible, we are in danger of getting sidetracked here, the issue at hand is technical superiority not market acceptance/business model etc. DSD commands a premium in the marketplace because it is new technology vis a vis the more established PCM technology and I still fail to see how that translates into technical superiority. Lest we loose sight of the issue at hand, you are the one who suggested that you felt DVDA was more superior because of it's superior SNR. I disputed that, because whilst it is superior in that respect, it is inferior to SACD in some other respects. I think the various aspects of that position are already well covered here by other participants of the thread.
Quote
I just dont see any superior (technical or audible) characteristics for SACD. Quite frankly, even with my NHT SB-3's I dont think I could tell the media apart (let alone from a CD) provided they were mastered to the same level with the same amount of care.

On your point of audibility, you are entitled to your position, however, it is simply not valid for the recording/mastering studios, if it were that clearcut why don't the studios just revert to 16/44.1 and forget about the higher resolutions or DSD altogether afterall the benefits are inaudible  ,  the fact that they are doing otherwise wholesale suggests that the reverse is the case. 

For the record, I have never suggested that there are benefits to mastering 24/192 to DSD.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #64 –
Quote
On your point of audibility, you are entitled to your position, however, it is simply not valid for the recording/mastering studios, if it were that clearcut why don't the studios just revert to 16/44.1 and forget about the higher resolutions or DSD altogether afterall the benefits are inaudible  ,  the fact that they are doing otherwise wholesale suggests that the reverse is the case.

Or not. I think many studios have changed to hi-res formats simply because it's what the market asks for, whether it sounds better to the people at studios or not.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #65 –
Quote
Or not. I think many studios have changed to hi-res formats simply because it's what the market asks for, whether it sounds better to the people at studios or not.

I disagree here, some studios were recording & mastering in higher bit rates and samplingfrequencies as far back as the early 1980s, I do not have the exact dates to hand

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #66 –
Quote
if it were that clearcut why don't the studios just revert to 16/44.1 and forget about the higher resolutions or DSD altogether afterall the benefits are inaudible

The higher resolution / bitrate formats are very useful in a studio, because they allow for smaller rounding errors while applying filters, but the benefits for end users on average audio equipment are far fewer.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #67 –
audiohobby, if high sample rates sound better for so many people, why there's no available scientific literature that proves its audible superiority, of course by means of blind tests? Why everytime people have been subjected to these kind of tests they have resulted in negative results?

I'm discarding Oohashi hypersonic effect paper, among other things because he used very special speakers and program material, and his results have not been yet duplicated by anyone. I'm talking about tests using commercial equipment and regular music.

Note that some very reputed mastering engineers such as Bob Katz say that 44.1 KHz well implemented is undistinguishable from higher sample rates.

Oh, and it would be interesting indeed to know what percentaje of studios used high sample rate PCM at the early 80's.

BTW, if one assumes that freq. over 20 KHz are not audible, it has no sense use high sample rates even at the studio. Bitdepths over 16 do have a sense at the studio, but high sample rates don't.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #68 –
Quote
Quote
Or not. I think many studios have changed to hi-res formats simply because it's what the market asks for, whether it sounds better to the people at studios or not.

I disagree here, some studios were recording & mastering in higher bit rates and samplingfrequencies as far back as the early 1980s, I do not have the exact dates to hand

That's just not true. There were a variety of sampling rates and bit depths in use in the mid-late 1970s, before 48 and 44.1 were standard. These were proprietary systems used by specific companies and studios.

Whatever numbers were used, their performance was something different! They couldn't make a 16-bit accurate DAC for the launch of CD. What’s more, for ADCs, 50kHz+ sample rates made sense when they didn't oversample, and carried out all the filtering in the analogue domain.

IIRC people were thinking about 24/96 in the early-mid 1990s. Even in the mid 1990s, audiophile record companies were using 24/48 ADCs and running the analogue master tapes at half speed (and that's not easy, because the replay EQ changes!) because they believed the existing 24/96 converters just weren't good enough.


FWIW I think there is an audible difference, but even people who can't hear a difference will probably use it if the market demands, because it can't sound worse than CD.

Cheers,
David.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #69 –
Quote
On your point of audibility, you are entitled to your position, however, it is simply not valid for the recording/mastering studios, if it were that clearcut why don't the studios just revert to 16/44.1 and forget about the higher resolutions or DSD altogether afterall the benefits are inaudible

A lot of people are more than happy with 48kHz 24-bit. Mike Oldfield (Tubular Bells) for one.


KikeG: Where did Bob Katz say CD quality was enough? From what I've read, that's not his position at all. He believes it can be much much better than it usually is, but he finds 24/96 better IIRC.

Cheers,
David.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #70 –
Quote
KikeG: Where did Bob Katz say CD quality was enough? From what I've read, that's not his position at all. He believes it can be much much better than it usually is, but he finds 24/96 better IIRC.

Yes, it seems Bob Katz didn't say exactly this, my memories were not totally accurate. What he said was (http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features...steningtest.htm) :

"A properly-designed 20kHz digital filter can be sonically invisible in a 96kHz sampled environment.

2. Experience and this experiment suggests that 44.1kHz sampling digital systems can sound much better simply by use of better digital filters. This includes all the filters in compact disc players, A/Ds, etc. The effects of cumulative filters must also be considered —
a situation similar to the familiar effects of group delay in successive bandpass limited analogue circuits.

3. 96kHz sampling systems do not sound better because of increased bandwidth. The ear does not use information above 20kHz to evaluate sound."

He doesn't give all the details about the filter characteristics. But if we assume it cuts everything over 21 or 22 KHz, then:

a ) the only difference between a well implemented 44.1 KHz system, and a 96 KHz system with this lowpass at 20 KHz, is quantization noise level below 20 KHz.

b ) this quantization noise is not the issue at discussion here, and is a non-issue at all in case of 24-bit systems.

Then, it could be re-interpreted like that 44.1 KHz can be sonically transparent if properly implemented. However, he really doesn't say explicitly such thing.

Maybe the article is outdated, I don't know. Oh, and I don't consider Bob Katz the Bible of Audio, either. Many of his claims over better or worse sound, jitter audibility, etc, are not backed up by any kind of blind testing, just his impressions.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #71 –
That's better - because that is the quote that I had read.


It begs one question (and I think Bob sees that it begs one question, but didn't answer it at that time, and didn't come back to it afterwards)...

If I take that 96kHz sampled 20kHz low pass filtered signal, and convert it to 44.1kHz, and then convert it back to 96kHz, does it still sound the same?


Nyquist says it can be the same, but Nyquist doesn't include the effects of quantisation and less-than-infinite-length filters. In the real world, the result can never be numerically identical, but can it be close enough to sound identical for all signals?

You would think so, wouldn’t you? But stranger things have happened. Using this wonderful filter, I can’t realistically see how 96k>filter>filter>96k (i.e. just running the filter another time) could sound any better than 96k>filter>48k>96k>filter. You can theoretically get the same result when going via 44.1kHz, but you would have to use a different filter in the resampling algorithm.


btw I don't know how the 20kHz filter in his experiment was designed, but I know it was over one second in duration. That's a seriously accurate (or steep, or both) filter! If it was linear phase, that's a serious amount of pre-ringing too, but it may have been minimum phase or similar.

Did you see the part where he asked the person (who created the original accurate filter for him) to go away and create a "typical bad" filter. He thought this shorter, typical DAC filter sounded like a cheap CD player.

EDIT: These filters are in a different article - I'm sure it was on his website, but he's re-arranged his site and my bookmark doesn't work. Maybe I'm making this part up?


I don't take what he says as gospel either, but he's a clever bloke (and a great bloke too - you should see the time he spent helping with Replay Gain), and he gains credibility by doing a test where he fully expects to hear a difference, and then publicly says that he hears no difference at all.

Cheers,
David.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #72 –
Quote
If I take that 96kHz sampled 20kHz low pass filtered signal, and convert it to 44.1kHz, and then convert it back to 96kHz, does it still sound the same?

Nyquist says it can be the same, but Nyquist doesn't include the effects of quantisation and less-than-infinite-length filters. In the real world, the result can never be numerically identical, but can it be close enough to sound identical for all signals?

Well, I think that you can make a single 20 KHz filter that gives exactly same response both at 96 KHz and at 44.1 KHz sampling rates. If it works at 96, KHz, why shouldn't it work at 44.1 KHz?

Quote
You would think so, wouldn’t you? But stranger things have happened. Using this wonderful filter, I can’t realistically see how 96k>filter>filter>96k (i.e. just running the filter another time) could sound any better than 96k>filter>48k>96k>filter. You can theoretically get the same result when going via 44.1kHz, but you would have to use a different filter in the resampling algorithm.


Yes, that what I mean. Filter characteristic at 44.1 KHz could be made to be exactly the same than at 96 KHz, given that the stopband starts below 22 KHz (fs/2).

Quote
btw I don't know how the 20kHz filter in his experiment was designed, but I know it was over one second in duration. That's a seriously accurate (or steep, or both) filter! If it was linear phase, that's a serious amount of pre-ringing too, but it may have been minimum phase or similar.
...
EDIT: These filters are in a different article - I'm sure it was on his website, but he's re-arranged his site and my bookmark doesn't work. Maybe I'm making this part up?


Well, according to the linked article, the filter was just 255-tap. This is quite short and I think a quite usual length in FIR filters at hardware oversampling DACs.

Quote
he gains credibility by doing a test where he fully expects to hear a difference, and then publicly says that he hears no difference at all.


Yes, that's something that speaks good of himself. He has a big reputation too.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #73 –
Quote
That's just not true. There were a variety of sampling rates and bit depths in use in the mid-late 1970s, before 48 and 44.1 were standard. These were proprietary systems used by specific companies and studios.

As far back as the dawn of CD, there were companies recording at > 16 bits.  Even today in the era of 24 bit DACs, the true resolution of many DACs is not 24 bits. why should it have been any different  20 years ago. Thinking about it, the studio was recording at 20/48 and that was at the dawn of CD. The whole idea of recording with more bits is surely old hat.

Help me put this guy back in his right place

Reply #74 –
Quote
Well, I think that you can make a single 20 KHz filter that gives exactly same response both at 96 KHz and at 44.1 KHz sampling rates. If it works at 96, KHz, why shouldn't it work at 44.1 KHz?
...
Filter characteristic at 44.1 KHz could be made to be exactly the same than at 96 KHz, given that the stopband starts below 22 KHz (fs/2).

Oops, what I missed is the fact that at 44.1 KHz you need two 20 KHz lowpass filters, the antialiasing one at the ADC and the anti-imaging one at the DAC. However, it's not very difficult to design them so that the combination of both gives the desired filter behaviour. For example, it possible to build one of the filters using a lot of taps, getting a behaviour very similar to a ideal brickwall filter at 22 KHz (similar to the 16383-tap filter at SSRC "slow" resampling), and relax frequency requirements of the other filter (a 255-tap filter starting at 20 KHz), so that this last one sets in practice the overall filter behaviour.