192khz - Could Someone Explain Why You Would Record At This Rate?

[david-p]

I use 192k only for measuring amplifiers and checking for spurious hf signals. Otherwise, I use 96k for actual recording, as the equivalent of higher tape speeds in analog recording, even though I recall A/B-ing the record/relay chain of a Nakamichi high end cassette recorder way back around 1975 and finding it barely distinguishable from a Studer A80 doing the same thing simultaneously. I told myself then that the wind was obviously in the right direction.

David

[mathis]

During my testings and demonstrations of Capstan (http://www.celemony.com/en/capstan) I learned to never work with headphones. This is something many people know already. What nobody knew before is that it's actually easier to detect the subtle flutter once I turn the speaker away from me than to sit in the sweet spot.

[mathis]

On 18.2.2017 at 6:17 PM, Bob Olhsson said:

There is a funny story about the EBU spending a fortune developing and blind testing a lossy audio codec only to have some guy in Los Angeles spot an artifact on loudspeakers that was blatantly obvious once people had been told what to listen for. My own jaw-dropping experience of this was a codec demo in a painfully live convention hall. The presenter wasn't sure we'd be able to hear any differences due to the horrendous acoustics. To our amazement what had been subtle in his mastering room was blatantly obvious over the PA system.

During my testings and demonstrations of Capstan (http://www.celemony.com/en/capstan) I learned to never work with headphones. This is something many people know already. What nobody knew before is that it's actually easier to detect the subtle flutter once I turn the speaker away from me than to sit in the sweet spot.

[Bob Olhsson]

That's the infamous "next room" effect. Mixing errors that weren't noticed are often blatantly obvious when listening from the lounge with the control room doors open.

[Bob Olhsson]

I'm editing and mastering an album that was converted to 192 from DSD. I'm finding it is far less stressful to the computer compared to 96 than I expected. 

[JoaCHIP]

This channel lacks something very obvious:

A good reason to record something at a very high sample rate is that you want to play it back in slowmotion for special sound effects reasons.

Example: Sometimes when I do a techno track, I might want a hihat to be lower and more gnarly. By playing it at half speed, I get that. Butif the sample was recorded at only 48 khz, and I play it back at just 24 khz, the treble will go up to 12 kHz max, and a lot of people will be able to tell that it lacks overtones.

By recording at 96 khz or even 192 khz, you can play back stuff at half speed and still have good sound quality. Try it - it's really fun!