Using such a high bit rate makes a lot of difference,i have both 16bit & 32bit...and rest assured peeps the 32bit versions leap out the speakers at you whereas even though the 16bit versions are good,they lack depth & fine detail. Feedback of any kind,is always welcome. Stuart Deyes
I believe the good Dr is correct. If they were made and mixed at 16 bit depth, then the resolution you claim is already lost. If you are mixing in something on top, like some enhanced higher frequencies, then I suppose it may make a slight difference. Perhaps a better explanation of what the source is would help us understand the advantages of your re.s?
Also, I'm not too sure what your actual sampling rate was, but the sound coming through on youtube is under 17kHz (besides only my dog could appreciate 96kHz!) - a platform for downloading in HQ would be a good way for people to hear your work properly?
Classic versions though - enjoyed listening to them again!
Gabby hi de ho,I always listen to my tunes from hdmi on lappo to my pioneer bdb-xv 212,which granted will do the 24bit thing max but i stand by the advantages of using high bit rates & khz to bring out the hidden depths of tracks,i do appreciate that even pooch will struggle to hear the top end frequencies,if this way of re.ing didn't work then studios wouldn't use 24/32bit to bring out new re.ed versions of their albums. Somethings i have in 24/32bit i owned 1st in 16bit & the difference is instantly noticable. The source material for both sets of demos that i was handed was 24bit 64khz but i'm gonna agree with the other geezer on here & say the originals must have been in 16bit,that said I'm confident that the quality of the demos i uploaded after re.ing will be much much better than any original that is presently available. My goal no matter what the band/artist is to source the best sounding material possible & share where poss with people on youtube,it's legal but most importantly...free Sorry for the essay!!! Take care,Stuart Deyes