I wasn't bullying. I was being direct. How come people who aren't being attacked feel like they are....unless there is some truth to the alleged bully's statement?
Seriously though, I do want the experiment mentioned actually tried sometime during my lifetime. It seems to me that most of the people who talk about this stuff do it from a "this is what should be, or this is what the machine shows" perspective rather than a "this is what I hear" perspective.

Here is an excerpt from Morph in the mastering thread started by pennywizz

Some Mp3's are amazingly close out
of the speaker, but they are far from the same on the wav/mp3 editor. Take the mp3 and re-convert it back to wav now and compare the statistics. Better
yet try cross channel fading on the once an mp3 wav. You cannot do it to the wav that has been converted and re-converted back. You can, but it is horrible
sounding because the frequencies were merged during encoding. This is how mp3's digitally represent sound. Technically speaking mp3 is a SOUND format and
not a form of preservable audio media. Rather It's just a compressed digital representation of combined frequencies. The theory began long ago when searching
for ways to make FM stations more powerful and longer range. The same pricipal goes for the dynamics of the media. try putting some quality compression
or other dynamics process on an mp3 same thing.


Morph admits here that even a high bit .mp3 can sound amazingly close to the original. Only when reconverted into wav and annalized through a wave editor can the differences be "seen" not "heard".
If this is true of a high bit .mp3, it must be even more true when comparing a 16 bit wav to a 24 bit wav.

Oh, and the first part of my post, about 196 bit 25000000000 sample rate, I call it "tongue in cheek", you call it bullying. Gees. The people telling me to lighten up are the people who actually need to do the lightening up.