> ...there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48....
from "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" (2012) [1]
from "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" (2012) [1]
Audiophiles demand streaming services to provide 192/24 because they see the music being originally mastered at high sample rates, and from that conclude that listening to 48/16 is a loss of "original recorded quality".
I can totally envision audiophiles picking up the Wescott's article and using it as "scientific" argument to distribute more Hi-Res music, and some half-technical manager buying that. They won't even read it.
Are human ears even capable of hearing 24 bits of dynamic range?
We know that 2^10 ≈ 10^3, so 2^24 ≈ 10^(3/10*24) = 10^7.2. This 7.2 is about amplitude, but what we hear is power which is quadratic in amplitude, so take a factor of 2, and you're talking 14.4 bel, or 144 decibel for 24 bit (and 2/3 of that, 96 db, for 16 bit).
(In reality it's a bit more complicated, but that's a good rough guide, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth#Quantization)