Which is the silliest audio file format ?

You can really get away with some wierd formats nowadays. 

For audio recording and playback purposes IMHO both formats are equally silly. Yet, don't forget that for some special applications either of them may be useful. AA is well prepared to serve as a tool for seismic signals, ultrasonics,  and physical measurements, and other exotic applications. Some 10 years ago I prepared a dedicated measurement equipment which served to catch the acceleration at the horseshoe of a horse to rate the influence of new materials. We did this by tweaking a DAT recording to a special format and were very happy to get support by CE96 then.

I'm beginning to lose the will to live again...

I'm beginning to lose the will to live again...

Is it due to the horses ?

Actually, this poll is showing a surprising result.  The low-rate, 32-bit file is the silliest because you can do the least with it.  But the 96Khz file can have a great deal of ultrasonic dither applied to it, thereby permitting better-than-8-bit sound to the human ear.

Actually, this poll is showing a surprising result. 

Hmmm..... the surprising result is that anybody voted at all, I'd say. 

The low-rate, 32-bit file is the silliest because you can do the least with it.  But the 96Khz file can have a great deal of ultrasonic dither applied to it, thereby permitting better-than-8-bit sound to the human ear.

Which just goes to prove that you can justify anything if you try hard enough!!!!

Well, if I had to build the AD myself then the 8/96 makes more sense.

Sense? Not at all, seeing as 8/96 is starting to resemble DSD, and what is the sense of that?