[Carey Carlan]

Don Y wrote in :

snip
Ever stood in a modern mastering suite and heard proper playback at a
resolution greater than 44.1/16?

I like 24/96. I'll leave it at that.

Or done any *processing* of that source -- other than
simply trying to reproduce it?

Would you eschew HD quality video sources if the only
means you had of viewing them was "conventional" video?
Ever try zooming on a standard broadcast or implementing
some special effect without "resolution to spare"?

I find 24/44.1 to be the prime editing environment. True, there's only
about 60 dB of usuable signal in most sources, but I bury all the
processing artifacts in those bottom 8 bits, then slice them off before
delivering a CD quality product.

Your HD analogy is descriptive, but non sequitur. While HD video is a
improvement over standard definition, it does not yet approach the
resolution and dynamic range of the human eye. CD quality sound
encompasses both the dynamic range and frequency response of the human
ear. Aside from processing artifacts, it's about as HD as the ear can
hear--better than my 50+ year old ears.