>   I would compare it to 16-bit vs. 24-bit sound sampling. A layman does
> not hear any difference at all between 16-bit (eg. CD) and 24-bit sound,
> but professionals would not work with anything less than 24. The same
> goes for 44kHz vs. 96kHz sample rate...

That is exactly to the point: "would not _work_ with anything else 
than...". The extra resolution with 24bit/96kHz comes very handy when 
you have to normalize, compress, equalize etc. Same way as in image 
editing. But I doubt if there are many professionals who can hear the 
difference between 16/44 and 24/96 _all other things being equal_.

And everyone who has ever gotten familiar with Hi-Fi world know how full 
of "magic bullets" it is: weights on CDs to make it sound better, all 
the fancy techniques to reduce jitter in CD players. The differences in 
sound quality are huge when the listener knows which equipment/brand he 
is using but in a blind test the differences almost allways magically 
disappear. Well, I went to off-topic, but still, the differences allways 
seem to be mach larger on the paper than in practice.

Severi

Post a reply to this message