[SirMaster]

There's no benefit to more than 16-bits. 16-bit allows for a dynamic range of 96dB. No music is mastered anywhere near this dynamic range.

24-bit helps in production pipelines for mixing, but for end user playback it's pointless.

[doublerabbit]

Maybe pointless, but if provided why not?

[nomel]

By the same logic, if pointless, why?

[doublerabbit]

As quoted from the OP.

> 24-bit helps in production pipelines for mixing, but for end user playback it's pointless.

If you have two versions of something, where one is better than the other and the resource cost is more or less the same it makes more sense to provide the better than the worse.

Maybe the end-user takes interest in mixing/production for which they then have the higher version allowing them to work with without the faff of having to obtain the better quality works. The end-user won't know the difference and the new apprentice has a copy that they can work with.

That's not a loss, that's a benefit even if pointless to the end user.

[cyberax]

> Maybe the end-user takes interest in mixing/production for which they then have the higher version allowing them to work with without the faff of having to obtain the better quality works.

16-bit is enough for mixing. 24-bit (or 32-bit floats, even better) are useful _within_ the mixing pipeline, so you don't need to care if one of the steps results in clipping as long as the final result is within the bounds.

[nsteel]

Because it's a complete waste of bandwidth.