[Music Alchemist]

  Truth be told the professional standard is and will remain to be 24 bit LPCM it still surpases FLAC, DSD and APE

  WAV 24/192 is great. I wonder if it is nowadays broadcast standard

 
Anything higher than 16-bit / 44.1 kHz has virtually no relevancy to playback. High-res is only useful for studio applications.

 

[bigshot]

  WAV 24/192 is great. I wonder if it is nowadays broadcast standard

For radio and TV it's 16/48 For streaming, it's AAC256.

 

[StanD]

  WAV 24/192 is great. I wonder if it is nowadays broadcast standard

I refer you to Occam's Razor and then to CD format and similar resolution/sample rates.

 

[kraken2109]

  Truth be told the professional standard is and will remain to be 24 bit LPCM it still surpases FLAC, DSD and APE

PCM like WAV is the standard because everything can play it and no decoding is necessary, not because it's better in any way related to sound.
 
Lossless is lossless.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

   
Anything higher than 16-bit / 44.1 kHz has virtually no relevancy to playback. High-res is only useful for studio applications.

I have both 44/16 and 96/24 from a recording of Beethoven's 5th, by Karajan and Berlin Phil. (also the 9th and 6th symphs). On my full floor system, the 96/24 sounds clearer, with more separation, natural tonality, and more depth. Not subtle either. So, not all hi-res is dud.

 

[StanD]

 
I have both 44/16 and 96/24 from a recording of Beethoven's 5th, by Karajan and Berlin Phil. (also the 9th and 6th symphs). On my full floor system, the 96/24 sounds clearer, with more separation, natural tonality, and more depth. Not subtle either. So, not all hi-res is dud.

Perhaps it has more to do with the mastering/recording rather than the delivered format.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

  Perhaps it has more to do with the mastering/recording rather than the delivered format.

very true. DG went back to those 1977 recordings, which were quite good to begin with. and they "remastered" them at 96/24. the rem'ed disc sounded astoundingly better.
 
original:
http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Symphonies-Ludwig-Van-Beethoven/dp/B001DCQI82/ref=sr_1_16?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1431443024&sr=1-16&keywords=karajan+beethoven+box
 
remastered:
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00008CLNP?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00

 

[StanD]

@CanadianMaestro You are probably aware that plenty of tests were made proving that human beings cannot tell the difference between hires and 16 bit 192 kHz mp3 files properly derived from the same source material.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I have both 44/16 and 96/24 from a recording of Beethoven's 5th, by Karajan and Berlin Phil. (also the 9th and 6th symphs). On my full floor system, the 96/24 sounds clearer, with more separation, natural tonality, and more depth. Not subtle either. So, not all hi-res is dud.

 
Did you convert the 16/44 files from the 24/96 files yourself? If not, it's not a valid comparison, since they probably just came from a different master.
 
If you haven't already, read this article: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 

You are probably aware that plenty of tests were made proving that human beings cannot tell the difference between hires and 16 bit 192 kHz mp3 files properly derived from the same source material.

 
This. Except some people have passed proper ABX tests of high bit rate MP3 vs lossless. I don't think anyone has ever passed that test with 256 kbps AAC.

 

[StanD]

 
This. Except some people have passed proper ABX tests of high bit rate MP3 vs lossless. I don't think anyone has ever passed that test with 256 kbps AAC.

Sounds like an anecdote to me or one of those fringe cases that one will not find in the wild.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Sounds like an anecdote to me or one of those fringe cases that one will not find in the wild.

 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/573974/lossless-vs-mp3-abx-results-among-other-abxs
 
There are many others if you search for them.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

 

my ears don't lie. btw, to be clear, this is 44/16 vs. 96/24.
not with a DAP or computer playback, either.  fanless, dedicated digital music player, no moving parts, noise floor dead black. makes a difference.
 
I didn't convert anything. the remastered CD, when ripped, will still yield 44/16 as always. but the tracks on the CDs were remastered to 96/24 in the studio, from originals.
 
pass the flamethrower...love it.
 
back to the electrophysiology rig here at my lab...
 
cheers

 

[Music Alchemist]

  my ears don't lie. btw, to be clear, this is 44/16 vs. 96/24.

 
Yeah...that's not how it works. You have to convert the files yourself, then compare. Otherwise you may just be comparing two different masters.

 

[StanD]

   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/573974/lossless-vs-mp3-abx-results-among-other-abxs
 
There are many others if you search for them.

Are you kidding that is a short thread that died long ago with few results by people not knowing what they are doing.

 

[StanD]

 
my ears don't lie. btw, to be clear, this is 44/16 vs. 96/24.
not with a DAP or computer playback, either.  fanless, dedicated digital music player, no moving parts, noise floor dead black. makes a difference.
 
I didn't convert anything. the remastered CD, when ripped, will still yield 44/16 as always. but the tracks on the CDs were remastered to 96/24 in the studio, from originals.
 
pass the flamethrower...love it.
 
back to the electrophysiology rig here at my lab...
 
cheers

If you don't conduct proper testing, IMO it's just talk.