Originally Posted by markus767
In my book 16/44.1 is enough for delivery.
Well, we can demonstrate that it is not. And we now have listening tests that directionally show that.
If pressed I would support 24/48 but everything above that just creates larger files without any audible benefit.
24/48 requires some kind of conversion since in music, it is not a common production method. The above listening test again directionally show that such a conversion can have audible effects.
But again, this is beside the point. It makes little sense to create yet another intermediate format. Large files do not create any problems for consumers or delivery today. The cost of storing those bits on a local hard disk is a fraction of the retail cost of of content itself. I just bought a NAS rated 6 tbyte drive for $260. Mirroring that for reliability costs me $800 with the NAS thrown in there. One hour of uncompressed 24-bit/96 Khz stereo file takes up 2 gigabytes. Lossless compression gets that down to 1 gigabytes. That means I can have roughly 6,000 one hour albums stored there. At $15 each, that would cost me $90,000 to buy, dwarfing the $800 cost of the hardware.
I just did a quick calculation using Amazon EC2 bandwidth cost and it comes to about $500 for those 6 tbytes so it is roundoff error for total retail transaction of $90,000.
And larger master files keep lossy compression alive.
Higher resolution is a good idea in production with lots of processing and unknown dynamic requirements while recording but for delivery it's unnecessary. We have bigger fish to fry.
This is the bigger fish to fry. The very format we rely on, the CD will vanish for the most part in the next few years. There is nothing more important than making sure we get some advancement when we move from physical format to digital online distribution.
It is time we wake up and stop arguing against having more choices of content formats available to us. There is no merit whatsoever to taking a negative position here. You are not forced to consume the content.