Here in france, movie theaters are slowly switching to digital projectors, I don’t like it (and I’m not talking about 3d wich is ever harder to see for me), I clearly miss these 35mm. But I think it’s only a matter of education, all my life I saw 35mm at movie theaters. I think I need to train my brain to better accept them (I’m getting old and it’s harder and harder) I can’t deny the quality of those HD projectors is interesting and the possibilities of 3d (even if it’s cleary not exploited for now) offer interesting new possibilities.
We (almost) all did our hear education on Cd 16bit 44.1hz and we feel comfortable with it, even if we all like the old vinyl wich is theorically ‘lofi’ compared to CD.
anyway I think you understand what I’m trying to say, I think I’m still drunk from yesterday english is not my native language so apologize my reflections. 
Quite many audio cards do have 192 these days, and more will come.
Anyway, processing alone is good enough reason to support it.
You can get rid of massive aliasing when synthesizing sounds and render them out in 192, and then optinally convert to lower sample rate…
I did a simple test so you can listen yourself actually how much aliasing you can get rid of.
[Download.](http://81.166.171.7:13782/5324greb45/aliasing render test.rar)
Nope. You have got ‘it’ or you don’t. ‘Talent’ is not learnt. Sure, I can study about the mechanics of running the 100m but at the end of the day if my legs can’t do it, I’m not going to do very well
Some people can paint, some can act, some can throw darts. Some people who own a computer and a hacked copy of FL studio think they are producers. But if you cannot write a tune, then you’re fucked
I’d forget all about the kilohertz and focus on chords etc
Interesting experiment, the 96Khz only has aliassing audible in the highest tone.
So would 192khz remove the last bit of aliassing on the high tone then as well you suspect?
Sometimes the aliassing makes the sound actually pleasant, the whole composition is based upon all these sounds, when you render sinc interpolation on 96khz, you actually get disappointing results 
did the question get answered yet ? 
I’d like to point out that when we’re talking about 192Khz, basically there’s two ways to support that. One would be to allow a 192Khz audio rate (if your sound card supports it), and another one would be to support 192Khz samples. And because Renoise is sample-based, I’d say that having one’s source material beefed up to 192Khz is the feature that I’m most interested in. Extreme sample manipulation (especially when pitching downwards) could have a noticeable impact on some types of sounds.
Also, having the source in a higher sample rate is beneficial, even when you don’t have a sound card that supports such a rate, since the re-sampling would be done internally in Renoise before it reaches the output
The question is already stated wrong because it more or less assumes that 192khz frequency support is planned, while this simply isn’t.
Considered and discussed:yes (and so many other thousands of great and less impressive ideas);
Planned:no.
So regarding the “If” question:perhaps.
Until a planning will be made regarding the “When” question:Unknown.
And if planning has been made: nobody here would find out earlier than when they get their hands on the first Beta, that has been the surprise-policy for years and it will remain so for many decades to come.
thank you vV, heldere taal clear words.
I’m with danoise on this one. Support for 192K samples would be nice… anything else is splitting hairs…
Just so people don’t get confused by this, it is already possible to load 192kHz samples… probably always has been.
I just used Wavosaur to generate some test samples at 176400Hz, 192000Hz, 352800Hz, 384000Hz, 705600Hz, 768000Hz, etc. and they all worked just fine.
There does appear to be some kind of limit, though. I kept going higher and higher, eventually reaching the completely insane sampling rate of 45158400Hz (that’s 45.1584 Megahertz, kids!), and this is where Renoise gets a bit quirky. You can stil load the sample, but at this sampling rate it appears that you cannot pitch the sample up at all, you can only play it at the C-4 base note or lower. But anyone complaining that they can’t work with samples higher than 45.1584MHz deserves a kick in the balls
Edit: Changing my mixing rate from 44100Hz to 48000Hz allowed me to pitch up the crazy sample a few more semitones, but then I hit another limit. I suspect that working at 96000Hz and higher would take you a bit further, but my shitty onboard card doesn’t allow this. Nevertheless, there appears to be some kind of practical upper limit to the samples you can load in, but it’s so far into the realm of complete nonsense that it’s not really worth talking about.
Edit 2: And yes, I realise that the thread is really about the ability to export/render at 192kHz, rather than the ability to load 192kHz samples, but I just wanted to address the fact that loading samples is already possible.
dblue, I bow to you. Once again, thanks for applying your scientific approach to the discussion 
I was simply assuming that 96Khz was the limit, since the “Adjust Sample Type” dialog box in the sample editor doesn’t go beyond that. And I didn’t have any 192Khz samples around - but of course, you could just generate them (d’uh!)
Your right, I agree, but for me, with anything, practice makes better. I was a shit painter when I first started out (and i don’t want to brag, but) now everyone i know says they wish they could paint as good as i can. And I learn something new every single time I produce a track. (thats one of the things I love about Renoise, theres always something new to learn about it)
You, sir, are the negative people i was talking about. and how can a question be “wrong” unless it states something, which it didnt, it simply asked.
Thanks for the Input dblue! I just learned something new.
There’s an explanation, purely technical, to the sample rate limitation, empirically tested by dblue. RIFF file format provides 32-bit unsigned to store sample rate and bytes per second, the latter being sample rate multiplied by block size, which in turn is bit-depth (in bytes) multiplied by number of channels. This bytes per second seems to be the limiting value as it reaches 32-bit maximum of 4294967296.
Assuming that I am correct with this speculation, I hold my hands in hope that thread starter and everyone else will learn something from this
I didn’t meant the question is wrong, i meant the question is formulated wrong, sorry for my poor English formulation of the answer.
I’m not negative:I’m just very critical. The better your idea is argumented with solid reasons for having this feature really necessary, raises the chances it gets implemented or it gets implemented faster.
Thank you that was a more mature rebuttal.
Hahahaha this made my day!
how so?
For all those high hz disbelievers out there: take a good quality reverb and put it on a track with bright synth sounds, add some nice amount of time and dont cut the high frequencies. If you cant hear the difference between 48 and 96 khz you’re basically deaf (and this is from someone who messed up his ears by walkman during the 90’s).
The Nyquist theorem applies to “end results” yes, but during the process of running stuff through dsp’s and mixers, not at least misc downsampling processes like several here mention, you cant really talk about “human hearing”. To use a similar example, if you got crappy image quality in the first place its really difficult to make the end result look crip and clear, no matter how much you manipulate the image.
PS: That said I basically use 44khz all the time these days as I use so many heavy vst’s and stuff, this despite having a powerful cpu/rig. Additionally I find the über crispness of 96khz overstated at times, and find that I often will be somewhat mislead in the sound creation phase, not keeping in mind that I will lose some of those “bi sounds” that so often can be so cool when moving on to the next downsampling phase.
I made the same assumption. I stand corrected.
Although my sole interest in this thread was the ability to process high samplerate samples, not to render final mixes at 192, you raise an interesting point…
“You could just generate them”…if you have something that renders files at that samplerate.
Maybe someday Renoise will be one of those tools, but as long as it handles manipulating them internally, not really a priority in my book.