Topic: The difference between 16/44 and 24/96 can not be heard

[Petrus]

From AES Journal 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9:

"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback

E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775

Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range of SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format. A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners showed no ability to hear any differences between formats. High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no evidence that perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or bandwidth."

Test were done with a high grade stereo system and over one hundred test persons. Nobody could hear the difference between SACD and CD standard audio.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

We've discussed that before on TS.  I think your subject for the post is too broad and takes way too much for granted.  The publication you cite only considered the narrow category of commercially mastered releases and not, for example, raw live audio.

[Petrus]

It is quite easy to make a test file and try this at home:

- get a true 24/96 recording (I bough one from Linn web shop, FLAC "Studio master" of Prokofiev's 1. symphony)
- convert to AIFF or WAV for processing, keep resolution at 24/96
- Join the traks into one file (4 tracks in this case, total of 14:20)
- cut the file into 30 second clips (28 clips in this case)
- copy clips, convert to 16/44.1 and back to 24/96
- throw dice to deside which resolution clips are used
- join the clips back to form the original perfirmance, some random clips those that were downrezzed 16/44.1, others 24/96 as decided by dice
- listen to the file with a good player capable of true 24/96 performance (I use SD722)
- make you own conclusions.

You can use this with friends by either asking at every 15+n30 seconds it the audio is hi or low resolution, or every n30 seconds if there was a change compared to previous clip.

This method bypasses the need for comparator, level setting etc. If you are really interested in finding out if you can hear the difference this is the way to test it. 

[Petrus]

haha... how lame...

For all I know Sound Devices claim this on their spec sheet:
-------
A/D, D/A Converters:
24 bit, 192 kHz sample rate maximum

D/A Dynamic Range:
112 dB, A-weighted bandwidth
108 dB, 20 Hz–22 kHz bandwidth
-------

The power of SD722 is its high S/N ratio, and that it is mechanically quiet. With PC or Mac you get fan/HDD noises, only the best separate sound cards have decent S/N ratios approaching even 16bit dynamic range.

Then again, if your best system can not differentiate between 16/44.1 and 24/96, then does it matter if you could???

[Frank in JC]

"From AES Journal...
A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners showed no ability to hear any differences..."

I think the AES would even have a difficult time establishing a difference between shit and shinola

[StuStu]

It is quite easy to make a test file and try this at home:

- get a true 24/96 recording (I bough one from Linn web shop, FLAC "Studio master" of Prokofiev's 1. symphony)
- convert to AIFF or WAV for processing, keep resolution at 24/96
- Join the traks into one file (4 tracks in this case, total of 14:20)
- cut the file into 30 second clips (28 clips in this case)
- copy clips, convert to 16/44.1 and back to 24/96
- throw dice to deside which resolution clips are used
- join the clips back to form the original perfirmance, some random clips those that were downrezzed 16/44.1, others 24/96 as decided by dice
- listen to the file with a good player capable of true 24/96 performance (I use SD722)
- make you own conclusions.

"- copy clips, convert to 16/44.1 and back to 24/96"
Hmmm...am I missing something here? I mean, if i convert a file file from 24/96 to 16/44.1, and then convert back to 24/96, I'm not listening to a true clone of the original 24/96 recording. I'm listening to a redbook quality recording in 24/96. Right?   

[Jammin72]

It is quite easy to make a test file and try this at home:

- get a true 24/96 recording (I bough one from Linn web shop, FLAC "Studio master" of Prokofiev's 1. symphony)
- convert to AIFF or WAV for processing, keep resolution at 24/96
- Join the traks into one file (4 tracks in this case, total of 14:20)
- cut the file into 30 second clips (28 clips in this case)
- copy clips, convert to 16/44.1 and back to 24/96
- throw dice to deside which resolution clips are used
- join the clips back to form the original perfirmance, some random clips those that were downrezzed 16/44.1, others 24/96 as decided by dice
- listen to the file with a good player capable of true 24/96 performance (I use SD722)
- make you own conclusions.

"- copy clips, convert to 16/44.1 and back to 24/96"
Hmmm...am I missing something here? I mean, if i convert a file file from 24/96 to 16/44.1, and then convert back to 24/96, I'm not listening to a true clone of the original 24/96 recording. I'm listening to a redbook quality recording in 24/96. Right?   

I think he's suggesting that you have to convert the ones you dithered/re sampled back to 24/96 so that they can be rejoined and played back seamlessly in the final product.  I would be surprised if all of that processing didn't make a difference in and of itself on the sound stage in those sections.

[Petrus]

Correct, by doing the 24/96 -> 16/44 > 24/96 route you can seamlesly join the clips back to an apparent 24/96 file but some clips are actually only 16/44 resolution. Easy to do, easy to test if you can hear the difference. I did this to a Linn "Studio Master" 24/96 file with Adobe audition and can not hear where the music was cut & downsampled.

Surprised you might be, maybe also disapointed...

Basically that conversion does not touch the 15 most important bits, and dithering only the last half bit depending on the settings, upconversion basically does nothing but adds the missing 8 zeros to the end and have absolutelly zero effect on the sound quality. This would be the case with 44.1 - 88.2 kHz conversions, recalculation needed for 96 - 44.1 -96 operations generate some artefacts, but apparently they can not be heard.

Like I said, nice exercise, does not cost anything if you have a true hi-rez file to manipulate (be carefull with the naming of files), needs no special test arrangements.

[StuStu]

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

[Petrus]

I have to admit that the subject for this thread is not correct. The original comparason was between SACD and CD resolutions, and my experiments with Linn Studio Master files (marketed as 24/96) shows, and net information confirms this, that they are not even near true 24/96 PMC quality.

So, next I have to get my hands on a REAL 24/96 high quality classical music file...

If it would make any difference.

[Corporate hack]

out of curiosity, Petrus, is your name on here a reference to the wine?

[Petrus]

eh.., yes, we have both aged gracefully...

[Corporate hack]

eh.., yes, we have both aged gracefully...

I'll stop derailing this conversation, but you've got to see this:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436394-details/The+moment+a+diner+sent+back+an+%C2%A318%2C000+bottle+of+wine+-+for+being+%27fake%27/article.do

[dean]

I have to admit that the subject for this thread is not correct. The original comparason was between SACD and CD resolutions, and my experiments with Linn Studio Master files (marketed as 24/96) shows, and net information confirms this, that they are not even near true 24/96 PMC quality.

So, next I have to get my hands on a REAL 24/96 high quality classical music file...

If it would make any difference.

Talk to Moke about this.  He records classical in 24/96 almost exclusively...

[noahbickart]

1) We should all agree that headroom concerns alone dictate that it is preferable to record at 24 bit. That way you can run your levels more conservatively without any loss of dynamic range.

2) I think the playback gear is a very important factor which has largely been ignored in this thread (except by Freelunch). I've been playing Petrus's test game with some SKB 24bit onstage Schoeps pulls from the rchive, using an Apogee Mini-DAC and my AKG k701's. The difference is there, especially when you know what to listen for. I can not, for example, hear the difference with my speaker setup, which isn't bad.

-Noah

[wbrisette]

I do have some 24/96 recordings of steel drums, not exactly classical, but they do tune certain drums to sound like cello, bass, etc.

In a semi-legit test we did here among a few people I don't think most were able to pick out any differences between sample rates, but some were able to pick out the 24 bit version from the 16 bit version. I think it really depends on the source material for sure.

Wayne

[Petrus]

Steel drums have high dynamic range and a lot of HF content, good source material!

[daco63]

Headroom is a very real advantage of recording in 24/96, but I think a bigger advantage is in post processing.  Straight volume adjustments may be ok, but anything more sophisticated than that (EQ, compression, etc) will start to show the advantages of 24/96 over 16/44.1 in a hurry.

Regarding playback, a good DAC and well executed hardware design can make 16/44.1 playback sound absolutely fantastic, no doubt (provided the source is good).  But the difference between good and poor DAC designs for 16/44.1 can be heard for sure.  I suspect that the improved resolution of 24/96 should make it easier for the hardware designers to achieve higher quality playback, so I think that 24/96 will indeed make a difference in the average performance of mid- and low-priced playback systems.

I also suspect the very high-end audio guys may be able to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 sources on their systems, but that's way out of my league.

- Dave

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

but that's way out of my league.
- Dave

You might be surprised.  You can build a damn good system on a budget if you follow the upgrade path that a lot of us have.

[Tim]

what he said

[daco63]

Hmmm... what do you consider "budget"?

And what is this "path" of which you speak?

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

This has been covered from various angles in other posts but the basic idea is:

Build a system up over time and conserve money by trading up.  It works for playback systems the same as it does for recording gear.  Do the required research so that you can select quality gear that has a reputation for being durable and holds resale value.  If you buy well respected gear, you can sell it when you get ready to move up.  Pick the very best components you already have and build around them to start.

I have two basic policies I follow:

1) I research the next upgrade while I'm saving money.  I study audiogon and the prices so that I know how common a good unit is on the market what a good price is.  Then I wait for the right unit to come up and the price I think is fair.  My goal is simply to minimize depreciation. 

2) I try to upgrade two levels of quality when I upgrade any component so that nothing gets out grown soon without having one component way outside the range of the rest of the system.  That reduces churn (saves money) and when one piece jumps ahead of the rest of the system, it usually has some unlocked potential that comes out when another piece is upgraded in the future.  So I get usually get really nice results each upgrade.

There are a lot of differing opinions but if I had to start from scratch today and had a limited budget, I would do something like this and try to do each step every 6-10 months.  Except for the first one, each of these upgrade can be in the $500 range.  Most people throw away more than $50 a month on that last beer or eating out at lunch.

1) get a good pair of monitors and stands and a good solid state integrated with digital inputs.  Use a PC or field recorder to push bits.  start saving for step 2.
2) next upgrade, get a very good DAC and still use PC or recorder for playback.  start saving for step 3.
3) decide if the speakers or integrated is weakest and upgrade the weakest one next. 
4) upgrade what you didn't in step 3.
5) depending on how good the DAC is, either go back to (2) or cycle though (3) and (4) on more time.
6) maybe eventually get a stand alone optical but these days I'd just use a networked storage device or the DVD reader in a PC to feed the DAC.

It is important to keep a synergy between all the pieces.  A $3000 speaker is going to sound not much better than a $300 speaker if its driven by poor upstream gear.  So spread the investment around.  Cables do make an audible difference but initally not so much, so just get some well constructed cables and worry about the esoteric ones later.  At some point, room treatments will be the best upgrade so consider those in there somewhere.

[daco63]

Wow.  Thank you! I see what you mean about carefully selecting pieces with resale in mind so that you can cash them in later for upgrades.  That seems key, or else the steps to move into the better pieces later would be too large.  Makes sense.  That's quite a different approach from trying to shop for the "best value" piece within your budget, which is what I normally do...

I'm guessing there is a certain timing/cadence for this to work too, right?  If you wait too long, the gear might start to obsolete and lose its popularity and value...

I'll go check for other threads on this topic.  Thanks again!

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I'm guessing there is a certain timing/cadence for this to work too, right?  If you wait too long, the gear might start to obsolete and lose its popularity and value...

Thats the thing about really good quality gear, it rarely goes obsolete in this context.  I have a conrad johnson tube amp in my system.  It is out of production now but the model is very highly regarded.  The usual price on agon is between $100 less to $300 more than I paid.  This one will continue to be "desirable" for years.  It's like some vintage macintosh tube gear that never falls out of favor.  Eventually the caps might start to fail, but I can have them replaced and it uses common tubes.

There are a lot of people on here who can help you because so many of us have been through the same path.  You'll be amazed what you can hear in your recordings with a nice playback system.

[nickgregory]

even though he is a caps fan (and as a result it is safe to assume he has questionable taste ) Michael speaks the truth, and has a kick ass playback system

[daco63]

I'm starting a new thread to ask for advice on my system... [/hijack]

[spcyrfc]

This has been covered from various angles in other posts but the basic idea is:

Build a system up over time and conserve money by trading up.  It works for playback systems the same as it does for recording gear.  Do the required research so that you can select quality gear that has a reputation for being durable and holds resale value.  If you buy well respected gear, you can sell it when you get ready to move up.  Pick the very best components you already have and build around them to start.

I have two basic policies I follow:

1) I research the next upgrade while I'm saving money.  I study audiogon and the prices so that I know how common a good unit is on the market what a good price is.  Then I wait for the right unit to come up and the price I think is fair.  My goal is simply to minimize depreciation. 

2) I try to upgrade two levels of quality when I upgrade any component so that nothing gets out grown soon without having one component way outside the range of the rest of the system.  That reduces churn (saves money) and when one piece jumps ahead of the rest of the system, it usually has some unlocked potential that comes out when another piece is upgraded in the future.  So I get usually get really nice results each upgrade.

There are a lot of differing opinions but if I had to start from scratch today and had a limited budget, I would do something like this and try to do each step every 6-10 months.  Except for the first one, each of these upgrade can be in the $500 range.  Most people throw away more than $50 a month on that last beer or eating out at lunch.

1) get a good pair of monitors and stands and a good solid state integrated with digital inputs.  Use a PC or field recorder to push bits.  start saving for step 2.
2) next upgrade, get a very good DAC and still use PC or recorder for playback.  start saving for step 3.
3) decide if the speakers or integrated is weakest and upgrade the weakest one next. 
4) upgrade what you didn't in step 3.
5) depending on how good the DAC is, either go back to (2) or cycle though (3) and (4) on more time.
6) maybe eventually get a stand alone optical but these days I'd just use a networked storage device or the DVD reader in a PC to feed the DAC.

It is important to keep a synergy between all the pieces.  A $3000 speaker is going to sound not much better than a $300 speaker if its driven by poor upstream gear.  So spread the investment around.  Cables do make an audible difference but initally not so much, so just get some well constructed cables and worry about the esoteric ones later.  At some point, room treatments will be the best upgrade so consider those in there somewhere.

very nice info.  i think it should be in an appropriately titled thread... "getting your playback started" or some such
 

[boyacrobat]

can be heard
stick all your defence of 16/44 in the bin.

fractions of sound not good enough to represent the source of sound.
source of sound better handled by 24/96 and above.

bunch of tight asses still defending the decimation of logic.
represent self with more value , rec in a higher realm than 16/44.

g

[boojum]

I cannot see that more than one person has taken the time to read the original article, which has not stopped anyone from criticizing it.  And, the usual practice in disputing tests is to conduct your own doing exactly the same thing seeing if your results are different.  I see no effort here of that either.  Lots of smoke, but not much light.

Here is an interesting link, but I doubt very much that anyone will follow it as it leads to facts and knowledge.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

I am looking forward to learned discussion and the obligatory tests to disprove the AES and BAS.

Cheers

[daco63]

I cannot see that more than one person has taken the time to read the original article, which has not stopped anyone from criticizing it.  And, the usual practice in disputing tests is to conduct your own doing exactly the same thing seeing if your results are different.  I see no effort here of that either.  Lots of smoke, but not much light.

Here is an interesting link, but I doubt very much that anyone will follow it as it leads to facts and knowledge.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

I am looking forward to learned discussion and the obligatory tests to disprove the AES and BAS.

Cheers

The original article is not available to read unless you are an AES member.  The link you provided gives some hints though.

Not having read the original study, it still strikes me as incorrect to make such a broad generalized statement from this kind of testing.  What's being tested is whether or not you can hear differences as processed through a particular DAC.  I would expect high quality DACs to process 16/44 content very gracefully, which apparently, these do.  It may also be that these particular DACs compromize potential 24/96 performance in order to optimize 16/44 performance...  But who knows?  This kind of testing doesn't appear to take those factors into account (but again, I haven't read the full study).

I think if you really wanted to conclusively demonstrate that there can be an audible difference between 16/44 and 24/96, your best bet would be to design a DAC specifically for that purpose.

Just my thoughts on it. I'm no expert.

- Dave

[Petrus]

  I would expect high quality DACs to process 16/44 content very gracefully, which apparently, these do.  It may also be that these particular DACs compromize potential 24/96 performance in order to optimize 16/44 performance...  But who knows?  This kind of testing doesn't appear to take those factors into account (but again, I haven't read the full study).
- Dave

In that test straight, pure SACD signal form SACD player was compared to the same signal after a 16/44 process. SACD was "pure" SACD, so how could it be of "compromized quality"? So there was a "perfect" hi-resolution SACD against a downgraded SACD-to-16/44 signal. Difference was not heard. Why is this not valid?

[daco63]

In that test straight, pure SACD signal form SACD player was compared to the same signal after a 16/44 process. SACD was "pure" SACD, so how could it be of "compromized quality"? So there was a "perfect" hi-resolution SACD against a downgraded SACD-to-16/44 signal. Difference was not heard. Why is this not valid?

Believe me, I'm over my head here, so maybe someone else can step in... but SACD players must also perform some form of Digital to Analog Conversion, right?  And I would think there would be some noise filtering to smooth out the jagged edges...  Just a quick google I find this example SACD player description:

The filter designed for the SACD 2 is a 2nd-order passive filter. At 12 dB per octave roll-off, it does not offer the out-of-band rejection of a more complex, steep slope filter. However, with a corner frequency at 35 kHz and 96 dB of attenuation at 2 MHz, this filter provides more than sufficient noise suppression to prevent both audible artifacts and intermodulation distortion.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

In that test straight, pure SACD signal form SACD player was compared to the same signal after a 16/44 process. SACD was "pure" SACD, so how could it be of "compromized quality"? So there was a "perfect" hi-resolution SACD against a downgraded SACD-to-16/44 signal. Difference was not heard. Why is this not valid?

All this test shows is that for one specific player, commercially mastered SACD is no better than 16/44.

[stevetoney]

I'm not sure what point the original poster is trying to make.  If the original poster is trying to convince this community that we're wasting our time with 24/96, then he's not going to succeed for all the reasons cited in earlier messages.  The advantanges to RECORDING in 24 bit are inherently obvious.

[boojum]

The original posting is quite clear: over 100 people could not hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings when tested in an ABX setup.  The AES is quite a respectable group of experienced folks, experienced in audio engineering and its allied fields.  The est subjects varied, as outlined in the BAS paper I linked.  These are actual tests.  You may not like the results but these are what they are.  If you disagree strongly enough why not conduct your own controlled ABX tests and see what results you get?

I am not sure what the arguement is about.  The results are not of speculation but testing.

Any input here?

[RebelRebel]

The original posting is quite clear: over 100 people could not hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings when tested in an ABX setup.  The AES is quite a respectable group of experienced folks, experienced in audio engineering and its allied fields.  The est subjects varied, as outlined in the BAS paper I linked.  These are actual tests.  You may not like the results but these are what they are.  If you disagree strongly enough why not conduct your own controlled ABX tests and see what results you get?

I am not sure what the arguement is about.  The results are not of speculation but testing.

Any input here?

I dont think it matters if 5,000,000 AES members took a quadruple blind test. The benefits of 24 bit word length are well documented and apparent to me. If they arent to you, keep recording in 16 bit, if they are, record in 24. Just dont rag on anyone else's decision to go one way or the other. Audio is no place for dogma or crusades..I dont really see the point of the OP.. does he think that his posting that little test will cause some mass exodus from high resolution recording? Dont hold your breath. Another thing..those AES people arent all professionals or credentialed....it isnt an elite club by any stretch. Pretty much all the engineers that I look up to work with 24 bit(and higher) (though the decision over sampling rates is all over the map)..

Boojum, it is ok to be opinionated, but it seems to me that you are a bit confrontational. Ive noticed that a lot of  your posts are just you arguing with someone or calling someone names, dispelling someone else's ideas, etc.....just live and let live, you arent here to save souls..it is only music.

[Gutbucket]

This test is not applicable to recording.
It is only about playback.

The test addresses the audibility of an A/D(16bit/44.1kHz)/A conversion inserted after the analog output of several SCAD players.

[RebelRebel]

This test is not applicable to recording.
It is only about playback.

The test addresses the audibility of an A/D(16bit/44.1kHz)/A conversion inserted after the analog output of several SCAD players.

the original OP's first post had broader implications, and I was addressing those.

[boyacrobat]

i can feel 24/96
i can hear 24/96

my sences demand i play 24/96 as much as possible.
most soothing this realm is over 16/44 for me.

i myself cant explain it properly but something more happens to me when in this realm.
try to feel it not just listen.

g

[Petrus]

We all know recording with 24 bits has tangible benefts. This test was about delivery; SACD could not be distinguished form 16/44. 16/44 has all the resolution we need for playback. Using 24/96 or whatever is perfectly legal and usefull (at least for recording), but claiming a big, audible difference in playback quality is simply not true.

Let's not mix up two different things, recording and delivery.
-----------------
Funny note: on a hifi bulletin board there has been two long winding threads about audible audio quality: one about different MP3 versions, one about this same CD versus ri-res formats. The funny part is that MP3 discussion is quite factual, people calmly admit they can not tell the least compressed MP3s apart, or distinguish them form CD quality. The CD/hi-res thread is much more emotional, there the whole question of even testing such a self evident fact [that hi-res is superior] is questioned, the validity of making test files is questioned and people refuse to take part in the test (or at least they decline to make any comments about their personal results).

I think this only can be caused by the monetary sacrafices these people have made. You can test different MP3 compressions without investing any money; any digital player can play anything MP3 and CD-WAV, so you are not going to loose face by admitting the best compressions sound the same. Not so with SACD/hi-res. Some people have invested thousands to play these formats, they will not admit they can not hear any improvement, they even refuse to listen to a simple test file to see it the difference can be heard.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

SACD could not be distinguished form 16/44.

An alternate interpretation is that the SACD may not be up to the task.  You seem to overlook that possibility.

How about I (or someone) make an audio-DVD with various LPCM tracks at 24/96 and 16/44 and circulate that as test material with each reviewer reporting his/her impressions of the various tracks, the equipment used and promising not to inspect the content of the dvd until after listening to the tracks and submitting results?  I think there are enough people on this forum have playback systems that qualify as adequate for the task.

Suggestions for selecting tracks?

edit: actually for an audio-DVD it would have to be 16/48 but someone with DVDA authoring could make a 16/44 comparison disk.

[noahbickart]

Another vital issue that had not yet come up is the duration of listening involved in the "test." In my experience, long term listening fatigue is a much bigger problem with comporession schemes like mp3. Can I reliably ABX the difference between FLAC and a 320 kbps MP3? No. But if you sat me down to listen to a whole show encoded both ways, I would be up and checking my e-mail or reading a book much faster with the MP3. Uncompressed audio holds my attention longer- kal v'homer with high res...

Over good headphones, however, the differences are clear.

-Noah

[Corporate hack]

and just imagine if that show was keller williams how often you'd be up?

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

SACD could not be distinguished form 16/44.

Agreed.  Sony keeps the format so tightly controlled that it is almost impossible for us to do our own 24/96 vs. sacd tests. I recall those who have not being too impressed with SACD.

[Kyle]

One issue that should be considered (it's late and if I missed something my apologies) are the DACs being used. I am not familiar with the Sony and Yamaha players that were used, but I own the Pioneer DV-563A. It is a great box and plays everything I throw at it, but the DAC is sub-par, IMO. DSD is downsampled to 88.2 PCM before it hits the DAC. So, at least with this player, the comp was between 88.2 PCM (from SACD) vs. 16.44 PCM through a mediocre DAC. I just gave Blonde on Blonde (redbook and SACD) a quick listen, and while I may not be able to tell which was which in a blind test, they certainly sounded different.....

[Nick's Picks]

and I still think that a well recorded 16bit effort is 100% pleasing.
to me , any way.

the high rez format war is the "bose" of the recording world.  I will not argue that it is superior, inferior.  whatever floats yer boat.
I like DSD>redbook best.  easy to pull.  easy to deal with.
but a great (read, pushed real HOT) 16bit recording is fudgin' great.

[boojum]

Just ran across this link on hydrogenaudio.org: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/index.html

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Just ran across this link on hydrogenaudio.org: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/index.html

I thought the 48k vs 96k debate was already put to bed when Wayne circulated the comps he made.  I dont' recall anyone saying they could identify the 24/48 from the 24/96.  If people like it for post processing and for novelty, why care?  So I don't understand why the sample rate issue keeps getting beaten to death here.

I read the article and didn't see anything about sample depth.  Did I miss the part about 24bit to 16bit comparison?  The author does indicate that he heard a difference between 20-bit LPCM and DSD and had a preference for the LPCM. 

Can someone here produce the original article?