What's the point of higher sampling rates in audio?, Such as 96 and 192kHz. Options

[stranhoROX]

Could someone explain to me why there are some recordings with sample rates as high as 192kHz? If most of us hear up to 20kHz, wouldn't 44.1kHz or even 48kHz be enough? Or is there other practical aspects besides boosting maximum frequency in higher sampling rates I am not aware of?

[Canar]

Trivial case where higher-sampling rates can become audible: Slowing the recording down. For playback at 1/N times the original speed, you need N times the sampling rate to capture all audible frequencies.

This post has been edited by Canar: Oct 16 2011, 21:50

[Notat]

+1 to saratoga

Canar's scenario is applicable to recordings of bats. I don't think you generally want formerly ultrasonic material to become audible on a slowed recording.

There have been demonstrations where listeners can reliably distinguish 48 and 96 kHz recordings. There are generally more variables in play (e.g. ADC behavior) than just sample rate in these trials.

Production engineers like to think of their process as an information funnel. They capture enormous amounts of information and, as they work, whittle it down to what they want people to hear in the final product. In this context, many are comforted by recording equipment and procedures that capture much more than necessary.

[krabapple]

There have been demonstrations where listeners can reliably distinguish 48 and 96 kHz recordings. There are generally more variables in play (e.g. ADC behavior) than just sample rate in these trials.

Links?