Poll: What samplerate do you use with jack?

[bluebell]

...But if all the basic tracks were upsampled to 32/96 and mixed in this domain, using plug-ins running 32/96 etc. and the master eventually downsampled to 16/44.1, then the resulting master would most likely sound a lot better than the original mix, even though both are 16/44.1

hmmm… interesting! will try to do it.

Frequencies much higher than we can hear are bad because they can cause audible interferences.
So sampling frequencies higher than 48000 are a waste of CPU (effects) and disk space and bear additional risks.

More than 16 bits for the finished material are a waste of everything. No-one has a listening environment where he can use the full dynamics of more than 96 dB.

Having an internal resolution of 32 bits (jackd) is good because of calculation errors when processing the signal.

More than 32 bits of internal resolution is a waste of CPU, RAM and storage. But I am sure it will be used to sell new versions of DAWs and plugins in the commercial world, especially to amateurs feeling like pros when thy buy "pro stuff".

[tramp]

For non linear processing you would benefit from higher samplerates, that's one of the reasons why for example distortion plugs do internal upsampling.

My vote goes for 48kHz otherwise.

[Lyberta]

Why not use 22khz stereo then?

Because 22kHz has Nyquist frequency of 11 kHz which way below the hearing range.

[CrocoDuck]

I like 48 kHz best when I do low latency USB audio stuff. For some reason it ends up working best. I sometimes use higher rates, up to 192 kHz, but not for low latency, and mainly to measure audio systems with higher accuracy.

[CrocoDuck]

For non linear processing you would benefit from higher samplerates, that's one of the reasons why for example distortion plugs do internal upsampling.

Yep, and synthesis too. Like to make a not aliased square wave, upsample helps. That's is how is done here: http://lsp-plug.in/?page=manuals&sectio ... lator_mono.

There is a not often mentioned downside of very high sample rates, usually it does not apply to what soundcards are limited to (192 kHz) but it can be an issue with DSP chips that can run also at 384 kHz or 768 kHz. Implementing filters that have accurate low frequency structures becomes much trickier.

[tramp]

For non linear processing you would benefit from higher samplerates, that's one of the reasons why for example distortion plugs do internal upsampling.

Yep, and synthesis too. Like to make a not aliased square wave, upsample helps. That's is how is done here: http://lsp-plug.in/?page=manuals&sectio ... lator_mono.

There is a not often mentioned downside of very high sample rates, usually it does not apply to what soundcards are limited to (192 kHz) but it can be an issue with DSP chips that can run also at 384 kHz or 768 kHz. Implementing filters that have accurate low frequency structures becomes much trickier.

Yes, just internal oversampling will never reach the sound-card, so you can't call it really samplerate. You just use it internal for the dsp processing. And in best case, only for the non-linear part. Beside that you could avoid to implement filters for such high sample rates and spare some dsp power.
Indeed for measurements there may be other requirements.

Even if the core recording is 48khz then editing and mastering at around 90khz gives better results

Nobody will use 90kHz. It's 96kHz, what is to be expected. Your argumentations comes with the same correctness.

[English Guy]

https://www.masteringbox.com/best-sample-rate

[Frank Carvalho]

48k.
because it's always possible to downsample when needed, but upsampling is pointless in terms of overall sound quality.

Upsampling a master would indeed be pointless.

No it isn't like i've already explained. It is useful to load a lower rates recording in a higher rates master project.

Then you misread me. I said upsampling a *master* would be pointless. The rest of my mail argued that upsampling the project makes a lot of difference.

[Frank Carvalho]

Frequencies much higher than we can hear are bad because they can cause audible interferences.

I disagree. I think the audible interferences of inaudible frequencies is exactly the reason why recording at higher sample frequencies has value. So I consider them good. After all these frequencies are there in real life and are a part of what we hear in real life.

[tramp]

Even if the core recording is 48khz then editing and mastering at around 90khz gives better results

Nobody will use 90kHz. It's 96kHz, what is to be expected. Your argumentations comes with the same correctness.

That correctness is more about you (r reading).
I said AROUND 90khz all the time. As this 90khz is what came out of research (not by me).
Don't try to burn medown on words i neversaid but came from (in this case your) missreading.
This 90khz is NOT comming from me! Is NOT invented by me or neither came from any thought off me.

To work AROUND 90khz you can choose for 96khz or 88khz. Both AROUND 90khz.
My personal choise is 96khz.

My words are correct. Read them correct. And after that react correct to me instead off this kind off bullshit because it's clear for a while that you don't like me. Still don't know what i did wrong with you, but whatever, shit happens.
It would be more chique though if you kept distance from me exactly like i try to keep from you to avoid any conflict. Please help me to keep it pleasant on this forum for all.
Ok? Deal?

To make that clear, I've no personal feelings about you.
Sorry, that you get the impression.

What I wrote was about the correctness in your stances.

Even if the core recording is 48khz then editing and mastering at around 90khz gives better results. Perhaps not even directly hearable, but at least to be unconsciously experienced. That's a fact, . . .

That may be your opinion, even possible that you experience such results, but it is far from being a fact.
Once you've recorded at 48kHz, all frequencies out of the audible range been lost already, you can't recover them by up-sampling. That, is what I call a fact.
As long you only apply linear filters, you wont benefit from up-sampling, and that, is as well a fact, which you could measure and calculate by the plain math behind it.
What you wrote hear sounds to me like snake oil.

I'm very well know the benefits of higher sample rates, and use them when needed, but, that ain't mean that higher sample rates been ultimate better. It depend on the project you work on, and the filters you plan to apply.

[Drumfix]

There is a simple test:

Run your soundcard at 96kHz
Create a soundfile that contains only sine waves with a frequency above 22kHz
Playback the soundfile and listen.

[Lyberta]

I disagree. I think the audible interferences of inaudible frequencies is exactly the reason why recording at higher sample frequencies has value. So I consider them good. After all these frequencies are there in real life and are a part of what we hear in real life.

Good luck finding a gear that can play beyond 20 kHz. Seriously, unless you have some laboratory equipment that can do something with ultrasound, you're just wasting CPU and HDD resources.

And many plugins can easily handle rates higher than 48khz.
So the effect on 47.980 hz were parts of the effect can go above 48.000 DO start to exist. And if cut away less effect will remain.

There is so much wrong with what you're saying that I don't even know where to start. If effect runs at 48 kHz then it can't do more than 24 kHz. If you set something to 47.980 kHz then... wait, wtf, WTF, seriously, what do you want at that frequency? Are you nuts?

[lilith]

https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1 ... 548#ref-22

Adam tweeters go up to 50 kHz.

[Lyberta]

https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1 ... 548#ref-22

Doesn't open with Tor.

[tramp]

But i'll bend and shut up. You win! (Do you?)

Your tendency to take anything personally is really annoying.