Originally Posted by dbbloke
And to note, probably the simplest and best way to do this is to take a live instrument (like a harpsichord/harp imho), record 16-44/48 then 24-96/192 bit. Play both files back and see if the instrument sounds different in any way.
Nobody ever claimed that high-rez formats aren't better suited for recording, in fact, it is considered good practice to work with 24/96 (or higher) when recording, adding effects, mixing and mastering. This is because the noise floor is lower and it is possible to alter the sound more with a high-rez format without introducing audible artifacts than would be the case with a 16/44 file.
The point everybody is trying to make here is that there is no audible improvement to using 24/96 for playback
, not for recording. After the sound has been mastered, there is no audible difference between exporting it as a 24/96 file or a 16/44 file, which is why the high-rez format is nothing but a waste of space.