I saw this posted on another forum.
I think the article needs careful reading -
lots of information but the statement:
'16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare. It does not span the entire possible signal range of audio equipment.'
Leads to the question, why spend all that money on developing technology if no one can hear the difference? - easing the engineer's job as explained doesn't really make sense to me.
'I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of the 'same' recording. This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different.'
so if you can't compare the different recordings you cant say one is better than the other - similarly you can't say they are worse, which he has said a lot in the article....
in the end I don't care - I just think if the music industry thought MP3 was best they would record in it and they don't. If it's recorded in 24/196 make it available for those who want to listen to it.
someone else posted this link too, bit of a meaty read thoughhttp://media.meridian-audio.com/datasheets/papers/Coding2.PDF