Hey folks, this is sort of a theoretical question...
let me start by saying, I'm looking forward to the next wave of 24 bit recorders as much as anyone else. it'll be great to finally use the V3 at 24 bit, to stop buying DAT tapes, and be recording at 24/96... and as far as 24 bit recordings go, a few months ago, I bought myself a DVD burner, discwelder Bronze, and Denon DVD player to play DVD-audio discs. my playback consists of DVD player > digi out > grace 901 > grado rs2 headphones.
I have about 30 shows in 24 bit format right about now. most are at 24/48, but several are also at 24/96. now, I don't have a direct, head-to-head comparison to base this on, but it is hard for me to discern the differences between 24/48 and 24/96. the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is huge for me. so I'm thinking, am I really going to be able to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192
or is this question more along the lines of the DAT question, why record at 16/48 instead of 16/44.1? just because you can? and in theory, it's a higher resolution recording? but the differences in media space between 16/44.1 and 16/48 was minimal. a 24/192 recording will be twice as large (file size) as a 24/96 recording. is it really worth it? maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to me because the grace 901 only goes up to 24/96? but even with 24/192, I'm sure my Denon isn't too shabby at D/A, and could output an analog signal to the 901. I just don't think the benefits gained from 24/192 over 24/96 outweigh the double the file size...
just sort of thinking aloud here. I'd like to hear everyone elses thoughts on this.
- Jason