If you keep trying to make sample rate discussions about upper hearing limits rather than accuracy of IN-BAND (that is, frequencies we CAN hear) processing, you are just trying to spread FUD. It is already well known what the limits of human hearing are, but that is not what really needs to be quantified regarding sample rates.
If you have no better arguments than ‘I can’t hear it, so it is a waste of time for anyone else’, or just being dismissive, don’t bother vainly trying to contribute any further to this discussion, because you are not clarifying the main issue regarding sample rates for recording and processing BEFORE making the final down-sample for normal listening.
Just to summarise some key points:
-
Engineering common sense requires that the precision of what you start with, and process it at, is higher than the required end result. Higher bit depth gives greater precision in the amplitude domain, but nothing greater in the time domain, where phase and level changes occur.
The more complex the total processing, the greater the precision required. -
The Nyquist Theorem is for the ONE special case of an infinite repetitive waveform, and says nothing about how much is needed to cover real world situations. Unfortunately, too many assume it does and stop exploring its limitations, which makes it difficult to arrive at minimum recommended sample rates for different types of music, or even a definitive one-size-fits-all. A top-level studio can just afford to have the best, but for us lesser mortals, some informed guidance may help our pockets cover all our needs better.
Supporting higher sample rates are: -
Universal Audio internally uses 192k on most of their UAD plugins. This is only mentioned in their manual and nowhere else, not even in their advertising. It does reduce the capacity of their UAD hardware, so it has a significant down-side, but they still use it. I deduce from that, that it IS REQUIRED for them to be able to accurately emulate REAL-WORLD devices.
It is this that originally piqued my interest in higher sample rates. Companies generally don’t saddle their products with performance limitations unless there are demonstrable benefits. Yes, they may sell more hardware by artificially limiting capabilities, but they advertise on the basis of the fantastic number of plugins one can use for given hardware. They could have just said it is all magic, but they have tables in their manual of all the extra latency required for each plugin, purely because of using 192k, which no-one in their right mind would want to saddle themselves or their users with if they had a choice. The growing competition has also not resulted in them abandoning this. -
Bob Katz, in Paul Gilreath’s The Guide to MIDI Orchestration, recommends recording, or at least up-scaling on first use, to 96k, and only down-sampling and dithering at the very end.
In his book, Mastering Audio, he cites other peoples’ research into advantages of higher sample rates. In the book, he states that he has designed digital filters that work very well at 44.1kHz, yet he still recommends using higher sample rates.
I would truly like to have some KPIs by which I could measure our recordings and have a formula by which to calculate the minimum suitable processing sample rate that would cover our target audience, INCLUDING those who appreciate quality.