Just took a quick look at the paper, and I’m neither very impressed nor convinced. 
Well i think it’s as thorough a piece of work that’s been done on the matter to date, and as far as I can see the treatment of the data and statistical analyses seems reasonable. What would it take to convince you?
1 Like
4 Likes
let @t chill, he’s just doing his thing!
the thing i find most annoying in the whole sample rate debate is the false assumption that all human hearing is created equal.
Agreed
My partner can actualy hear if the internet is being accessed in the house…not just if the modem is on…but hear a wi fi connection between the modem and the device. She can tell me if my phone is on or off when its in my pocket.
I might ask her if she hears any difference between 44.1 and 96…
6 Likes
double blind tests have been done on this, and there are people that score very well on these tests, and some that score poorly, and most can’t tell the difference.
YMMV as they say when it comes to using higher sample rates, but there is plenty of hard evidence to support that a file processed at 96khz through certain types of (poorly designed) digital signal processing will exhibit less aliasing distortion than one at 44.1khz.
Same applies to me but the other way around, the more dust in the sound the better, my sweet spot is in the 4,5 - 10 khz range max 12 bit quality.
4 Likes
absolutely. you will have to pry my akai s900 out of my cold dead hands
2 Likes
Sampler instruments and audio recording rates are very different topics
And Black Sabbath recorded their first album in mono, in a day, live takes.
2 Likes
Ok
I am referring to what i like to listen to, i could add taperecordings of AM/FM radio.
That is awesome.
1 Like
Yeah. And then your track is played as an mp3 (because most clubs still have the old CDJs that don´t support lossless files) through a clipping channel on a PA with a limiter that constantly kills 10db because the first dj already put the mixer´s output on 11. I am just fantasizing, somehting like that would NEVER happen in the real world.
edit/ this was meant as a reply to the first post, not sure why @anon64972012 is quoted.
1 Like
Always test your mixes streamed from YouTube at 144p on an iPhone speaker on the subway!
8 Likes
Keeping it real in 2018 
haha yup. A significant amount of my music is made on a Gameboy Micro / DS Lite so recording at 96khz would be a waste of hard disk space 
1 Like
Reviving because I wanted to ask. I record into my daw through my Motu Ultralite mk3 interface at 16 bit, 44.1. Would it be fair to say I could increase to 24 bit with only small performance hit? I’m sure my CPU would be fine. Dunno why I’ve kept it at 16 bit so long.
My gain staging is usually pretty good, will 24 bit be a noticable difference when I get to the mixing stage? Thanks.
1 Like
I went from 16 to 24 a few years back, and I thought I noticed a little difference. But hey, who knows anymore? I might have drank the kool aid that day. The biggest difference is the with the noise floor. Let’s say you recorded something at a lower volume than intended. With 24 bit, you can boost it more before noise is introduced, giving you more headroom. So on one or two tracks, maybe not a big issue, but over many tracks that can add up. This is also why 32 bit is becoming the norm for field recorders, and on location recordings, for movie sets and whatnot. If something happens or isn’t gain staged correctly, and you only catch a whisper, 32 bit can boost it way up there with almost no noise. Unless of course there was ambient noise, then that would be there.
4 Likes
Yes.
If you always record with proper gain staging and if you only record stuff with little dynamics (e.g. synths instead of an acoustic guitar or a singer doing a dynamic performance), then the difference is going to be minimal.
3 Likes