knotkranky wrote:192,000 slices a second is gonna sound better than 96,000 or 44,100 for that matter.
not nesecarilly.
The problem ith digital sampling frequency is that you get an extinction frequency exactly half of the sampling frequency.
example - if you record a 1khz test tone with a sample rate of 2khz, you will hear nothing, because the point of sample will fall on 0 every time, unless the phase is moved by 90 degres in which only a tri wave will be heard.
Thats why CD's have taken 44.1khz, because the extinction freq. will be 22.05khz which is just outside human hearing,
However this will alter the phase, so the high frequencies will sound more spatial and out of phase.
to correct this, you can simply add frequencies from 48khz, which will keep the phaze in line.
To do this you will need a sample rate of 96khz minimum.
If you want to record and hear the differences between 96khz and 192khz,you will need monitors capable of reproducing more than 50khz - example Tannoy precision range, and you will need microphones capable of produing more than 50khz & samplers/synths capable of produing more than 50khz.
in a proffessional studio, Yes, in your bedroom - very unlikely.
the point here is this:
if you cannot prduce the sounds to take advantage of 192khz, and you dont have the equipment to present 80khz (monitors),
then there is no need to use 196khz.
especially when making dance music, which is big on bass and mid frequency ranges.
I havnt read the whole thread BTW, sorry if all of this has already been said.