🚀 go-pugleaf

I guess I could look at it all another way.

When I made my first commercial CD recording back in '84, someone involved in the project said, "if we made a good analog recording and converted it to digital, we'd save a lot of money - would they be able to tell the difference, listening to the CD?" Needless to say I said I was quite certain they would tell the difference.

If someone from a record company came to me now and said, "record this classical performer, and deliver the result to us on a mastered CD, but we insist that the original material is recorded in 24/96" - I'd be pretty confident (but grossly improper) in suggesting to the artist that we saved money by not bothering with the 24/96 requirement. No way could they prove, from the 16/44.1 master, that it had or had not been created from a 24/96 original.

Heck, months back when someone asked how to prove that a red book CD had, or had not, been created from an mp3 source, nobody could suggest a means!

But - let's be careful when stoutly defending our positions in this matter that we do not overlook that we do have areas of agreement in some aspects, eg the benefits of working in 32 bit float when processing audio. I don't think our opinions are quite as polarised as an outside observer might think.