Nope, it's not about the extra details but the less aliasing.

According to the paper @bluerover mentioned https://audiosex.pro/threads/brickwall-filter-at-20khz.53832/page-2#post-478113 that's not a good idea.

 

No, it is all about the digital signal processing. It's like saying that there's no difference between using a behringer guitar pedal vs a boutique pedal because they will be reproduced through bad speakers at the end.

Is there any real difference between a 48k vs 192k wav file? No. Is there any difference in audio processing at 48k sr vs 192k sr? Huge.

 

Forget inter-modulation distortion, buy more brute number marketing

The man in the article recommends 60Khz as the optimal frequency sampling. And that's very conservative because he assumes people can hear 20+Khz.

 

Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. I believe there is a difference in audio processing, but likely not that much in high sample rate wav files. Although, what do you think about 44.1 vs 48 wav files though? All my wav files are 44.1. I am a bit considering to maybe make it to 48.

 

Well, they're missing out, specially if they don't tune everything to 432. If you divide multiples of 48000 by 432 that always give you a perfect periodic coefficient. The higher the frequency you choose the higher the quality of your music.

For example:
48000 / 432 = 111.11111111111111111111111
192000 / 432 = 444.44444444444444444444444

PS: They say if you tune to 420 then you really hear some s***, specially if you entire record is played in A Aeolian

 

From what I heard, 48000 makes it easier to sync audio and video.
With a quick google search:

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=gazpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=audio+and+video+easier+if+48000&source=bl&ots=N64dO8tDHF&sig=ACfU3U0_dKiLo-JKGKYfUIOE434UyT4zRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjA0PmTp8rpAhUTA9QKHUmEBSUQ6AEwCnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=audio and video easier if 48000&f=false

 

Tuning to 420. The secret of all Bob Marley discography.

 

I tried to be sarcastic but this is too good

Oh man, my stomach hurts of the hard laughs...

 

I use 48k for wav files, except if there's a project that I think is important then I use 96k, but mostly for peace of mind / to avoid research in forums and academic literature. Also if I'm not mistaken some labels want you to send them 96k final masters, don't know the reason.

 

the trick is about distortion and definition.
broadcast pro systems use 384K, the real neutral digital dithering. and overbit DSD=2,8224 Mbit , DXD=8.4672 Mbit

as pyramix in cinema dubbing voices proccess. it sounds great compared to 44,1Khz
Pro analog consoles are signal flat until 150 Khz to enable a low BF distortion in electronics.

 

Last edited: May 23, 2020

Uhm, interesting. Well, maybe it's a good idea for me to use at least 48k wav files aswell.

 

I agree. 48 kHz is a good sample rate to be using.

Ultimately, if someone gave me a choice of using a FOCUSRITE Scarlette AD to record at 96 kHz, or a MYTEK or a PRISM AD to record at 44.1 kHz......I'm choosing the MYTEK or PRISM and recording everything @ 44.1.

Bottom line is, if you are hearing a difference in your converter from when you record at 44.1 vs. 96, 88.1, 48, etc. etc., it's not the '...fidelity' of the sample rate you're hearing at all, it means that there is something wrong with your converter, and In most cases, it's due to poor consumer-grade conversion. You get what you pay for.

A professional converter will yield no audible difference from one sample rate to the next.

Considering the investment required to acquire just 1 stereo channel of professional conversion, it's no wonder this conversation has been constantly brought up for over two decades.

We didn't even talk about the "clocking" and sync side of this, which is debatable and not to mention can be just as expensive.

But, work with what you've got. If you think it sounds better, then by all means go for it!

 

Last edited: May 24, 2020

The 44.1Khz birate it's the CD format legacy, so I think is better to set a multiple of 48K more suitable for modern formats. Not that 44.1 is bad.
Legend says that ancient 44.1Khz decision was a combination of several factors including "visual debugging using VHS tapes" (remember CD was developed in the 80s). I swear I'm not kidding in this one

 

Well obviously the basic rate near 40Khz or just above was picked to allow recording frequencies up to 20K but apparently the extra "4.1" did come about as some kind of weird scan rate compatability with a Sony video machine. I'm assuming a pro grade one, not consumer but I'd have to Google the whole deal to find out again. It was not "visual debugging using VHS tapes" whatever the f**k that is supposed to mean.

I also remember some weird legend that 48 was not picked because it would have meant Beethoven's 9th would not have fit on a 650 Mb disc. Would love to look that one up...

 

Gentleman, I explained that wildly weird thing the best I could.

 

If you master to 44.1 the filter is applied at 22khz by the rendering daw.
it has to be done (automaticly).
nyquists theorem of aliasing.
If no filter is applied and frequencies obove the half sampling frequency are sampled, you get aliasing noise below the half sample frequency.
bitcrusher usually have a parameter for aliasing noise, it's a nice effect, but you dont want to have that on your master.
Thats why I dont use 96khz or anything above 48khz... I don't do stuff for bats and dogs.

 

Yeah, I don't trust my daw FL Studio for doing stuff like that well actually haha.

Most of my tracks are also soundtracks for movies. And if I am right 24/48kHz is the standard here. So maybe it's not a bad idea for me to go up there.

 

If one use 96K,that's not to hear up to 48KHz sounds but for plugins efficiency,better processing.

By the way personnally I make my songs in 48K because I use a Adat converter and if I want all the 8 channels,I'm stucked with 44 or 48KHz SR.

 

Could anyone tell me why when I change sample rates in my DAW everything goes out of key and time?

 

A brickwall filter is not a good choice in most cases i would argue because of the aliasing artefacts. The steeper your filter the more aliasing and artefacts as a general rule.