Hacker News Reader

Oh it's worse than that, for distribution and playback sampling at more than 48kHz is likely worse in many ways due to unwanted ultrasonic noise and increased intermodulation distortion. 96/24 makes sense for production, and 96/float56 is common in DSP chains.

View on HN

When the production produces unwanted ultrasonic noise, then that's not a sampling rate problem. It is instead a production problem.

And that's perfectly OK, too: The neat part about having too much data is that other end-users (like you and me) are free to throw it away as expeditiously as we choose to.

To that end: I, for one, welcome our 192kHz overlords. (And then I'll shove it through my hardware DSP that operates at 24-bit 48kHz and fuhgettaboutit.)

I don't LISTEN to music in 192kHz. I listen in 48kHz like everyone else and it sounds perfectly fine. But, I do MIX my music in 192kHz, however, before it's final export to 48kHz. It is about the anti-aliasing principle I described in my post above. But, while I'm mixing my audio clock is at 192kHz, and I can't escape that. Hence I will be looking at how to run this project on a beefier device that could run at 192kHz sample rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com