Blu-CD or SACD? (not the new Blu-spec CD, discussing profile 3.0 BD vs. SACD)

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

Here we go, arguing about 192 vs 96. I don't have a point, I just don't believe in your point. There's no way I'm ever going to believe that 192KHz is not better than 96KHz. If you believe there is no difference between the two, there's something wrong.

It's not really. Beyond 96khz, you are at the point of diminshing returns. Secondly, bass begins to lag and sound dis-associated from the rest of the audio at 192khz. Another effect is that imaging really begins to unnaturally spread at 192khz. These are two effects that I noticed while participating in a DBT for the AES chapter I belong to. 24/96khz just makes sure that there are no losses, but is an overkill in and of itself. 20/60khz would be more optimal, as it would cover all frequencies a half octave over what humans can hear. That's just a pad to prevent any detectable losses. There is no advantage to 192khz, but there are some disadvantages. Only to a point does a higher sampling rate really benefits audio quality.

Bit depth is far more important than sampling rate for PCM. Professional studios nowadays have the ability to record up to 32/384.

32bit is floating point which has the effective resolution of 24bit. 384khz is oversampling, not a direct sample. However you are correct, the ability is there.

A lot of the music is recorded at 24/96 for scores, but because pretty much everything else is recorded at 24/48 (dialogue, gaffing, etc.) you're not likely to ever hear the original 24/96 recording unless it's releases on DVD-A.

Doby, a gaffer is essentially the Chief Lighting technician or head electrician on the set, and is not really associated with audio at all. However you are correct, most scores are recorded in 24/96khz, and dialog and effects can be 24/48 or 16/48khz.