No matter what the logic or the science is to justify it, what it really comes down to is that it is yet another reason to buy products that you don't already have that manufactures need to sell, in order to make money and survive. At some point in time in the future, chip makers won't make anything else than at least 192K so you won't be able to buy anything else.

If and when DVD in any one of it's many formats replaces CD for audio content, then it just might make a bigger difference that all people are willing to pay for. Of course by then even the DVD format may already be obsolete.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree to a point. Some manufacturers do want to make and sell equipment and they have to come out with something better.

But there is a ton of evidence that processing audio at at least 96k sampling rate yields better results not only on paper but in practice. Several reasons for this, one being that when audio is dymanically processed as in compression, limiting, clipping. Harmonics are generated just as in analog gear, the difference being is that in analog gear, there is no absolute ceiling in regards to frequency and the harmonics that are generated will be filtered out in the A/D converter in the end. But in digital, there is an absolute ceiling and if harmonics that are generated go beyond that ceiling, they will aliased back into the audio spectrum within the audible range. Therefore if you are working at a higher sampling rate, you have a much higher ceiling and the SRC will filter these harmonics when you bump it down so that they won't be aliased back into the audio. Another reason is that the digital filters at higher sampling rates are well beyond our ability to hear them and can be applied more gently than at lower sampling rates. This reduces the audible effects of filters in the range that we can hear. Now the real debate is whether 96k is better than 192k. Some believe that 192k is complete overkill and that the processors aren't fast enough to accurately reproduce the signal and that 96k can be implimented better. So the issue for me is not capturing these higher frequencies so you can enjoy a 40khz signal, it's the processing of these signals at higher sampling rates so we can enjoy a purer signal that we can actually hear.

I would still argue that if chip makers were only making 16-bit 44.1k converters and processers today, they would be more than good enough for recording purposes. You have to give a great deal of credit to all the advancements they have made in design and fabrication of chips over the years. There is way more to 24-bit and 96K or 192 K sounding better than just the numbers. Modern converters with very good analog design around them do a damn fine job at 24-bit 441.k that make it very hard for the commoner to tell the difference.

Oh and I totally agree if all you're doing is capturing the audio. But If you're going to process the audio after the fact, then 96k will beat out 44.1k.

Ears are good to have. Use them and hear what sounds best to you and use that. Simple as that.

Me? I use 44.1k.

Gunnar

I use 44.1 with nice converters, and to me, that's absolutely fine for rock and roll.

However, I know that 192 gets used in film a lot, especially for SFX. I read that the sound can be pitched waaaaay down and have a minimum of artifacts with 192. And since films ultimately end up on DVD, that makes a lot of sense.

Also, classical music often gets played on ultra high-quality systems for people who have expensive ears. It makes sense for that as well.

But if you're close-mic'ing a Marshall stack that will be drowned in a sea of overdrive, IMO, 44.1 is A-OK.

I don't really know, but to me it sound way better when I record in 96khz and then convert it all to 44.1khz, then doing all of this at 44.1khz...
You decide :) That's my opinion...

more bits,bytes of data better sound I guess(even if it's not audible to a human ear, but there is a difference)...
http://www.audiopro.com has some really nice examples of that on their online courses!

re,pinc

This is sort of like asking why people mixed to 1/2" when the product was going to be released on cassette. The idea is two fold... the first being that the if you can achieve higher quality in production the end result will sound better...

However, in the case of 192, at this point in the evolution of chip design, 192 chips don't actually sound as good as 96k chips. The chips made for 96k have a sweetness and a musicality to them that the 192 chips lack. Now there are some 192 chips that are getting closer... but they ain't there yet.

It definitely makes a difference, even at lower sampling rates.

Like on my old RADAR I started with the S-Nyquist chip set [192] and moved to the Nyquist [96] chipset because they sounded far more musical. I tried the Classic [44.1/48] chipset and they didn't seem to have the depth of field nor resolution [nor 'sweetness'] of the Nyquist set... so I roll with the Nyquist set and am very happy.

The new RADAR V that's on the way in will be able to do 24 tracks at 96k... I'm quite looking forward to working in that format as the few things I did at 96 on the RADAR-24 machines I had [only 12 tracks at 96] sounded drop dead gorgeous.