176.4 Khz rendering? ... 44.1 x 4 = 176.4

Why no “176.4 Khz” for final rendering?

Don’t care about Aliasing?

I assume its because 192khz (48khz x 4) is a better alternative, given that 48khz captures more high end frequencies than 44.1khz, so if you’re going to go super high then 192khz is preferable. Not an opinion based on fact, just lazy deduction.

the standard is 44.1 Khz for music
“multiples” based oversampling or downsampling give the best result

Yeah I know CDs and a lot of music is 44.1 based on the fourier transform and using roughly double the audible range of human hearing plus a little bit for margin of error. 48khz is more common in recording as it is double 24khz and more accurately samples the supersonic frequencies and therefore favourable harmonics. Or something like that. At a 4x oversampling 192khz is preferable to 176.4khz.

Spotify,deezer…44.1 Khz

If you’re only going to give low effort, contrarian responses to this discussion then why even ask?

1 Like

I just give an idea to add in Renoise

and it’s justified I think

Convert 48 Khz to 44.1 Khz is a bad idea

If you don’t understand this,it’s your problem

OK then hot shot.

I would say that brighter people than either of us have never implemented it, so either it’s not as good as 192khz or you’re an undiscovered audio engineering genius and you need to run to the patent office as fast as your tall legs will carry you.

1 Like

Instead of sending me a private message just ask your questions here. You ask:

“Have you ever resized a pic to a non multiple size?”

Is based on a false equivalence. Very high sample rates are used either when rendering plug ins to a final bounce, or when recording audio to ensure an extremely accurate representation. If you load into a sampler a sample recorded at 44.1khz rendering at anything higher is utterly pointless and you cant add information that wasn’t there to begin with.

You are really confused about when and where sample rates matter. Do some research yourself and educate yourself, then if you are sure your 176khz idea is solid, pitch it somewhere and make your fortune.

MJ popcorn

3 Likes

Ha. I give up. Maybe he can message TakTik and ask for 176.4khz rendering.

I’m sorry @Tall_TeQ it just does not make any sense unless you’re a dolphin (maybe you are, not judging !)

44.1kHz have roughly 2.7 times the resolution needed to properly render the highest frequency humans can hear (theoretically 20kHz, but in practice it’s 16kHz, and less as you get older)

The “staircase” effect or “aliasing” is largely a myth originating from a simplified representation of what digital conversion does to an analog signal. But, in the real world, even if you have the crappiest sounding AD/DA converter, the signal will be smoothed out… because it goes through analog (amplifiers, cables…) and physical (speakers, air molecules,…) objects that can’t physically instantly move from 0 to 1 (unless you have an infinite amount of energy)

However, there is ONE instance where super high sample rate do make sense : sound design. If you want to manipulate super high-pitch sounds to slow them down to human hearing range… you can benefit from 96kHz samples, assuming you have recording equipment capable at handling such frequencies.

Also, this is not an opinion, this is science. Look it up, there are PLENTY of very in-depth articles on the subject.

Maybe you do have good reasons to need 176kHz (like the sound design example I gave you) but as far as quality goes… it won’t improve anything (at best, your dog might notice… but I don’t think it cares).

Cheers.

1 Like

I work with 88,2 Khz in Renoise
For the mastering,I want to Multiply by two

You think you have reason
I think I have reason

No need to discuss more

TakTik will make his choice