• Schmeckinger@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whats the point of 96kHz(playback)? You basically only produce sounds outside of the human hearing with that.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No point really. The Nyquist sampling theorem says that 44.1kHz is overkill, much less 48kHz or anything beyond. You only need twice the sample rate of the highest frequency to be reproduced, and human hearing generally goes up to 20kHz (less for almost all adults). Accordingly, many production recording equipment won’t even bother with frequencies approaching 20kHz. The only conceivable point is that you don’t need to resample files in higher sample rates, which saves you a tiny bit of cpu time I guess.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        absolutely nothing outside of the recording studio. It’s useful when handling intermediate s when you’re mixing several recordings. Once the mix is done, it’s useless

      • slice1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Dynamic processors (e.g. compressors, limiters, peak detectiors) are more accurate at higher sample rates (and bit depth). Also, less latency at higher frequency. Lastly, it greatly improves editing including “modern” processing such as time streching, pitch correction etc. I am not sure what the effects on “spatialization” are …