by HYPNAGOGIA » Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:36 am
Maybe, maybe not.
When it comes to bit depth, the largest dynamic range any digital converter can give you is about 120 dB, which comes to about 20-21 bits. That means, when you play anything, you can't even get the range of a full 24 bit audio. 32-bits, in that regard, seem rather pointless. Though, compared to 16-bit, you will still have a greater dynamic range with 24-bit. In that sense, music might seem more "alive", although I don't really believe that's necessarily true, given that after mastering, both 16 and 24 bit music will, practically, be equally compressed.
As for the sample rate, if you take Nyquist frequency into account, 44.1k perfectly covers the 20-20k Hz range of human hearing. It's basically impossible for anyone to hear anything beyond that.
There are some proponents that claim that frequencies in the inaudible spectrum (ultrasonic, above 20 kHz) can interact with the audible spectrum and basically "enrich" the experience and give listeners more pleasure (Oohashi tests). On the other hand, AES Convention tests, conducted by Laurie Fincham (used to be a research director at KEF Electronics, later came to THX) showed that only a few people of the test subjects were actually able to detect a high pass filter set at 16 kHz, and no one could tell that there was any filter at 20 and 25k. So, take that as you will.
I do have a friend that swears by her Adam A7X nearfield monitors. I haven't heard them personally, but she says that listening on them doesn't cause her ears fatigue and tiredness as much or as fast as some other speakers. It's worth to note that they are rated to have a frequency response from 42 Hz to 50 kHz.
In conclusion: who knows.
You will hear contradicting stories everywhere.
Like I said, I kind of have my own set of rules that depend on what I'm doing. I see absolutely no reasons to release my music in 96kHz/24-bit. If I was recording instruments and what not, or do a lot of time stretching, I might be inclined to record in 88.1 or 96 kHz. I'm not sure I'd work with 192 kHz; I think that's a waste of valuable resources. But generally, I'm doing everything in 44.1, though I'll export in 48 kHz if I'm doing it for a video that I'll be posting on YouTube to save time on conversion, and I'll absolutely export in 24-bit for mastering.
But that's me.
As for you?
I see no reason why you shouldn't up your sample rate to 48 kHz if you want to - that's not so much a big difference (about 1%). Upping the bit rate will also up your file size by about 50%, so that's something to keep in mind. Do I think you, me or anyone else will notice if you go from 44.1/16 to 48/24, even on high-resolution audio systems? No, can't say that I do.
