Better mastered music could be on the way!

Good quote pauln. 

Here is (imo) a balanced view, that in some ways, finds some middle ground: http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

I much prefer Neuphonix's link. That tweakheadz article seems a bit confused.

No ABX test needed?

So I take it from this statement that you haven't actually tried converting a lossless WAV file to a 320kbps MP3 using LAME to do the encoding and then using Foobar with the ABX plugin to test yourself to see if you can hear any difference between the original WAV file and the MP3 file.

Go on give it a go. It's a simple test that only takes about 20 minutes to do. People can write anything on forums but I urge everyone reading this to prove it to themselves at home. See for yourself if you can pass this blind ABX test 10 times in a row.

I have to admit to making an error (I was trying to simplify the purpose of a higher sampling rate), there are more snapshots but this doesn't lead to greater accuracy.  Read the SoS article that Neuphonix posted, specifically the "Joining the dots" part.  The tweakheadz argument for greater bit-depth is entirely correct but is only relevant for recording and mixing, not the final playback.  And then read the article the B.A.S. presented to the AES in 2007 - it doesn't matter what the numbers say, when care is taken to remove variables and bias the difference is inaudible. And that is what really matters.

I'm going to bow out now because this is just flogging a dead horse.

According to this article there are advantages with recording ie. Head room, Noise floor and DSP.

With Playback, the headroom argument is no longer valid. Apparently 24 bit does capture more soft tiny details, so it depends how much of them get buried in the noise floor your equipment. http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

Been interesting, and it's far from straight forward.

CNO, maybe you should read the source of this digital revolution for a change - the Nyquist theorem. maybe then you'll understand that there's only one digitisation principle! for instance for a 1kHz it's really irrelevant how much bit depth you're using (only as much as to capture the volume of the sound) or what sampling frequency is (provided in this case it's at least some 2500 Hz).

24 bit depth will not give you more definition in the audible spectrum. higher frequency sampling rate will not give you more better approximation of the analog waveform. all data there is needed to digitize analog signal within 20 - 20 kHz is contained within 44.1 kHz sampling rate. 16 bit bit depth gives you enough dynamic range to capture without any clipping just about every musical event. 24bit/96 Khz (or whatever else) does not offer better sound quality! and certainly there's no reason for hi-rez content to be charged at a premium. hi-rez is just a more convenient tool to use in studio environment.

as I said before, what we need is music recorded with a generous dynamic range (about 40 - 45dB total and some 25dB loudness to peak ratio). you don't need 24bit to get this level of dynamic range.

so my point is, it's not wider availability of hi-rez content that's supposed to be a rescue for plummeting recording industry but good recording and mastering practise. just imagine, if mainstream lays their hands on hi-rez you'll get just as much compressed music as you get now on CD. Red Book is not a bad medium, it never was. at the beginning DACs were not up to the job and now most of the recent recordings are a disgrace. if you want to know what I'm talking about put yourself on on your modern gear a Dire Straights CD from the beginning of 80-ties.

I'm confused as to why none of the people who can definitely hear a difference will take up Steve's challenge. Mirren Boy possibly genuinely fails to follow the simple arguments that are being made, but everyone else appears to have the understanding and capability. 

your amp will definitely have worse SNR to even show full potential of CD, let alone hi-rez.

24bit does not capture more soft, tiny details. if anything it captures more loud details. 96dB dynamic range is enough to capture sounds from 120dB loud (way too loud for you to listen to without fatigue for a few minutes) down to 30dB (which is about the level of natural noise floor of your home during the day).

When I first heard "Just a little lovin'" by Shelby Lynne (http://open.spotify.com/track/4aw3fSvZdrmapQvPTklwqw), I swore that had to be SACD... Nope, just Red Book, well recorded and well engineered!

It's a simple test to do and all the software needed to do it is free.

Rip a CD track to a lossless WAV file.

Convert the WAV file to a 320kbps MP3 using LAME.

Use Foobar with the ABX plugin to test yourself to see if you can hear any difference between the original WAV file and the MP3 file.

Steve, all the bold type in the world won't make them try it. 

The more you look into it, the more opinions you get, and someone with a little more technical knowledge can tie you in knots.

Here is another view which is well put (post 4):
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98769

....at least it ties in with what (I think) I'm hearing

Why won't you take Steve's challenge Cno?

I'll try underlined italics next time.