Quote:
You responded quite well to a completely different argument than the one I made, lol.
Also, this is my 1,500th post, and that means I'm right.
Well, 1500! I'm humbled!
Quote:
If the master isn't better (and it probably won't be) then the 24-bit 96kHz version will probably be audibly worse because there are lots of reasons and tricks for downsampling to 16/44.1, like dither, noise shaping, removal of ultrasonic distortion, etc.
Obviously, I didn't understand your point.
"If the master isn't better" (Better than what? It's the master, therefore, the reference. A down-sampled or up-sampled copy? I think it would be arguably better, though my point is, perhaps not audibly. A bit-perfect copy? Nope, not better, but exactly equal. It seems a master would always be slightly better or equal to a copy of any kind, certainly equal to a 24/96 copy if the master was 24/96, and these days, many are. Some 24/96 files originate from analog masters...a whole other issue, but the digital intermediate would be audibly identical to the master in that case)
"then the 24-bit 96kHz version will probably be audible worse" (Perhaps I didn't understand...worse than what, the master? If that's your point, that's what I was disagreeing with. IF that's not your point, then it blew over my head...probably at 1500 feet.)
"because there are lots of reasons and tricks for downsampling to 16/44.1" (I don't see lots of reasons to down-sample. Only one: the release formant is required to be of lower bit depth or sampling rate than the master. Did I miss one..or two? If by tricks you mean "how to do it right or wrong", we agree on that point.)
"like dither, noise shaping, removal of ultrasonic distortion, etc." (Those would be the "tricks" but not "reasons to down-sample", and you've missed a few besides, but no matter)
It seemed like you were making the point that a 24/96kHz version would always be worse than the original, which is not true as it depends on what the original was, and if and how down-sampling was done. OR that at 24/96 up-sampled version would always be worse than the original. Again, not true. Or that down-sampling always causes audible degradation, unless the proper "tricks" are applied (which they usually are). We agree on that, except for the implication that audibly degraded downsampling is the norm, rather than the exception.
If I got all of this wrong, I apologize. I clearly have about 500 more posts to go before I'm right!