[Czilla9000]

Why is it that alot of digital audiophile record companies (and some major ones like Sony) digitally record something in 24/192 (or some 20 bit thing) and then downsample it to 16/44 in the name of sound quality? Wouldn't it be better to record something directly to 16/44 since the direct route usually yields the highest sound quality?

 

[Canman]

Hopefully a techie can answer this question better than I. As I understand it, more of the dynamic range is captured when audio is recorded at a higher bitrate, then downconverted, throwing out the least significant bits. I am sure that partially it is done for marketing purposes, as audiophiles love to see the magical 24 bit number. Plus, the recording might be of sufficient resolution for mastering to DVD-Audio or SACD or any other future release format.

 

[gpalmer]

After the recording there is lots of processing, effects and mixes, etc. These cause a loss of precision so that the range of the music is reduced (the last few bits get trashed). By starting with more bits, the loss of the least significant part of the recording becomes unnoticeable.