I'm willing to pay $44 for a couple of hours with this girl, but $192 is just marketing

 

Definetly upscaled , and Photoshop doesn´t read audiofiles.

 

actually it does

 

Myself
I do 96 Khz/32 bit float all the time. I could easerly do 192 Khz/32 bit float but it takes up too much space on my SSD cards.
Imo it´s not much about how many Khz your recordings are but how much headroom you get by using the option of 32 bit float = that´s the real changer.

 

I don't know about the numbers, but with the new 192 KHz card, my monitors, which are up to 22 KHz, have finally worked properly.

 

There's a huge difference recording at 192khz, working at 192khz and listening at 192khz.
The latter offers little to nothing. The mistake everyone does with SR is that it focus on Sample Rate alone.
I did that myself in past so no judging. SR is the answer but the question is Aliasing.
Nowadays with oversampling there is less and less need for that but back in the days it made a huge difference.

So go back, read about aliasing and it's side effects and then ask the same question.
https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-aliasing-and-what-causes-it

 

24 bits 44/48 kHz
Everything else is just hype for ppl who think "bigger is better"

Most plugins will do internal oversampling, and DAW internal bus is AT LEAST at 192 kHz/32 bits float

And remember one thing : ALL audio chips are 24bits linear
Even on multi thousand converters.

So basically 32 bits recording is just upscaling 24 bits native converter.
We already had this discussion about 32bits.
And now 192 kHz (witch is, at least, not upscaling like 32 bits recording).

Too much time lost already ... bye !

 

192 kHz are useful when you want to slow something down dramatically and not lose high end. Assuming you recorded it at 192kHz to begin with. Other than that, useless. Use oversampling instead.

 

No, 192 is better and in fact - not quite enough to eliminate all shortcoming of digital audio. In general - I'd recommend to use 48kHz and oversampling as needed (and every non-linear processor benefits from it), but there's also a question of aliasing on virtual instruments or even fader movements as well as steepness and ring of filters used for oversampling. If you really want best possible results - use high sampling rate AND oversampling (and convert it to 44.1/48 at the mastering stage with a high quality resampler), second best would be lower sampling rate with oversampling. High sampling rate (and 192 isn't actually that high) WITHOUT oversampling comes third.

 

Yes.

 

192 kHz is definitely NOT just marketing! It is actually quite useful.
When recording, you benefit from low latencies. In editing and production you benefit from higher precision of pitch and stretch algorithms. In mixing you benefit from less aliasing artifacts. And in listening - if speakers with digital inputs are used - you benefit from higher precision.
I really don't know where people get the idea that this is just a marketing gag. The same applies to 32-bit converters. If you don't know what you're talking about, just keep your mouth shut and let others talk.

 

If low latency is a benefit how can we make use of that when recording guitar with VST amp sim plugins? What's the process?

Latency is the bane of recording guitar with amp sim plugins, especially monitoring in real time - which is necessary because the sound of the VST plugin informs how we play.

 

Digital audio is transmitted in chunks.

 

If your music is for dogs?

 

Let's assume your AD converter packs 256 samples into one chunk:

1.000ms÷44.100×256=5,804ms
1.000ms÷192.000×256=1,333ms

The same applies to the DA conversion. So you can multiply the time-value in this example calculation by 2. This is approximately the latency between your audio input and your audio output during recording. Add the latency caused by plug-ins.

 

I understand sampling rate, I'm just wondering if there are any benefits to using 192 Khz for my stated use, this isn't clear - I know the plugin will have its own latency which has to be factored in but will the latency be lower in actual use with 192 Khz vs 44 Khz? I would test it but, you know, Brexit (more winning)... My Motu M4 isn't even on the M4 yet, customs have held it because it didn't include an invoice...

 

Plugin latency (samples latency) increases slightly with higher sample rate. But the latency will not multiply by 4 with 192kHz sample rate . However, you benefit.

 

Ok thing is: With 44.1 and 48khz your reconstruction filter might do harm to an area an infant could theoretically hear.
With 96khz you can't have such problems. A reconstruction filter for a 96khz signal cuts at 48khz and there is absolutely no way that filter could do anything that would reach down to those frequencies you might theoretically be able to hear (20k).
So 96khz is a good thing because it just is the save bet. 192 is bullshit, total bullshit.
//edit// in case you don't know what a reconstruction filter is, google how converters work and stuff