I think he means in the way of rendering. Differences are noticable on the high ends. But only if you render your complete stuff in e.g. 48khz and then afterwards again in 96Khz
If low rendered stuff is upgraded from a low to high frequency level, then this is not noticable though.
While reading this thread with great pleasure I came to think of an interesting thing I heard once.
“It’s not the cineasts who buy big widescreen tv’s and expensive surround sound systems, they spend the money on films”
I guess it can be applied to a lot of things and seen as an analogy in this case. Sure it’s fun to mash samples to the extreme, I admit that, but experience says that when one get stuck to much around technicalities the focus is elsewhere and the creativity is more or less dead imo. But on the other hand mashing samples is also a way to be creative I guess (Now I blew my own point, as usual). But I’ve been there and done that, waiting for new hardware and features thinking, as soon I get that… I will be able to make great music and here I am 8 years later still making freaking chiptunes!! Bottomline: It can become obsessive, it hardly ever leads to anything at all and it can be hard to find a way out of it.
By the way, as asked before, you gonna throw up some examples so we can hear the difference you are talking about.Genuinely, we r all curious. (regarding audio quality)
[i]okay, i could easily throw up some examples, put em on my website and stuff, but you guys are most likely right, as i remember i was really high when i tried this last, so i was probably just tripping. i am officially humbled, and i surrender to your logic.
And yes, I am medically crazy. Music is one of the only things that keeps me sane (apart from my meds, hehehe) [/i]
This is an excerpt from an exchange I had with him in a thread…he has already admitted
this is the most probable cause for his perceived hearing ability days ago!
He is a nice kid lets leave him alone now!!
Supersampling is good thing thought. The best could be to have per track 2/4/8x options to supersample. 
SOOOO ???
any news on the 192khz option for renoise? atleast for rendering?? …
and yes. it makes a big fckin difference . . . the more khz, the finer the processing … DOH!
Say your sampling engine was now 192k… lets say you pitch down a couple of octaves…
All the bats that were previously irrelevant will now be squeeking on your tracks which you’ll have to filter out anyway!
No more progress. We’ve had enough!
SOOOO ???
any news on the 192khz option for renoise? atleast for rendering?? …
and yes. it makes a big fckin difference . . . the more khz, the finer the processing … DOH!
Duh, Renoise already has 192khz rendering, you just bumped a 4 year old thread.
WTF am i talking about? I was thinking 96K, but somehow it turned into 192k. 
Say your sampling engine was now 192k… lets say you pitch down a couple of octaves…
All the bats that were previously irrelevant will now be squeeking on your tracks which you’ll have to filter out anyway!
No more progress. We’ve had enough!
What?
192,000Hz Resolution on a monday funking REALTEK M8
you need some serious NASA pc from the latest spaceship from year 2024 to make some preproducions…
we dont have so much human sences for 192 kiloschnaps, are you guys trying to make music for cats or bats???
maybe im personally deaf but i got old echo indigo 24bit 96hurricats soundcard and i use mostly 16bit 44.1 hurrdurrs or whatever classic CD quallity, because its easy to master and final work sounds still the same on a mp3 player , and zero surprises on a bigger soundsystems, kicks are kicking and synths are sparkling. listen to some music, sound is above top notch even from late 90’s bedroom techno guys who used real shit equipement.
192,000Hz Resolution on a monday funking REALTEK M8
you need some serious NASA pc from the latest spaceship from year 2024 to make some preproducions…
we dont have so much human sences for 192 kiloschnaps, are you guys trying to make music for cats or bats???
maybe im personally deaf but i got old echo indigo 24bit 96hurricats soundcard and i use mostly 16bit 44.1 hurrdurrs or whatever classic CD quallity, because its easy to master and final work sounds still the same on a mp3 player , and zero surprises on a bigger soundsystems, kicks are kicking and synths are sparkling. listen to some music, sound is above top notch even from late 90’s bedroom techno guys who used real shit equipement.
Some say the higher sample rates reduces aliasing though, so i guess you then would have benefit from rendering in a high rate and convert it down for the mastering.
Yep, for crappy synthesis/resampling algorithms raising the sample rate can counteract aliasing. It could has might be “trapped” in the inaudible range, and can be chopped away for release with one resampling by a proper resampler. The higher rate, the more headroom, but the more your cpu will smoke.
Another good thing about high rates & crappy algorithms: I find the hf content (the audible one) to be represented in a clearer way. You say it’s up to 22.05khz content at 44.1…yes, but dig to make a 22.05 khz tone, you only have choice of 2 alternating values to represent it, at 2 different discrete phase steps and everything in between will blop with the volume/energy. This is inaudible, but at 11.025 which is audible for non-deaf people you have like 4 values representing the content, which is a little better of course and gives 4 different phases for a constant wave without changing energy. Now think about the frequencies in between, where a constant sinewave will flabber in sort of soft aliasing style between those values. Just try reconstructing sines of different freqs and phases and such with cycles of between 3 and 4 values. I think it’s also a deal about the reconstruction filter in the soundcard, but whacked up 44.1k content just won’t sound as clear in the fizzly noises as 96k.
Try yourself bobbing a clean sinewave in a crappy resampler (renoise), and playback at high frequencies, slowly pitching through the freqs. You might witness that for some “notes” it will be louder that for others, and some might not be audible at all though they should. This is a systematic problem of course, and few people care. But those are no dullheads speaking about cleaner high frequency content at high rates, I was mindblown testing this when I got my first musician grade soundcard some years ago. I tend to believe it’s the higher resolution in sampling for the (audible) high frequencies that can make them sound better. It’s a subtle effect, most hf content isn’t like in the range our brain would interpret harmonic/melodic, rather lots of hissing and such. Like the upper edge of hihats, cymbals and very bright instruments at high pitches. But this can get much clearer I think. Haven’t blind-tested it though. For testing you need some recording of actual music at such a rate, that isn’t just upsampled. But I think I found differences (smaller) in pure playback between 44.1 and 96k even for 44.1 hq mp3 content - this tells me the software I used to playback most probably is off from perfect state, or the soundcard just like high rates better.
As for hf headroom content suddenly audible by pitching down stuff…yeah, for synthesized stuff probably. But I guess most microphones will filter out those high frequencies, as will the adc and/or other stuff in between. Special microphones normally used for recording bats might be usable. It’s really mostly headroom plus more hf accuracy when going at high rates.
It’s really mostly headroom plus more hf accuracy when going at high rates.
might be some day i will hear benefit from that 
in my opinion lower sample rates does less empty spaces in spectrum, so i can properly fill everything just with few tracks to sound warm and fuzzy, if not enough headroom eq some less necessary stuff 
high rates would be powerful weapon in own home but no one else will hear that, especially if you play at some gigs, your ultra HDHQ sound going straight from your futuretron3500 soundcard into the most shitty mixer organisers have found on the ground blastin into the speakers with just a little bit too much gain on, because it sounds fatter and louder = better. 
Yeah, I have no problem listening to 192k 44.1 mp3 on crappy equipment or even studio headphones. It bangs on allright, I think. 128k is a sad deal for me, though.
No, difference in real “oversampled” material is a bit hard to describe. I think it’s like the high freqs are hard and aggressive sounding at low rates, while at high rates they can suddenly sound somewhat “transparent”. Yes, like translucent, I always have the feeling they shine through with sounds instead of just hissing hard. Like it’s no block of noise anymore, but actual meaningful stuff. A bit like comparing 8bit 22khz samples to cd quality, but even further.
I wouldn’t care in a club or so about it, though, it’d be too loud to enjoy it anyways. 192k jazz records from original tape is stuff for people with a highend speaker system and a 250$ bottle of wine or so. They’ll have their heads singin in tune to the crappy microphones and tape distortion the jazz had once been recorded, may them feel bright, oh…
renoise supports 192 just fine, you just can’t select it in the menu (hint: force it to outside of it, offline render at 192 wont be possible though, you need to rewire)
renoise supports 192 just fine, you just can’t select it in the menu (hint: force it to outside of it, offline render at 192 wont be possible though, you need to rewire)
Do you mean Renoise is able to route 192kHz audio to another DAW, but not render it offline? That doesn’t make much sense to me. 
@TheBellows : In rewire the slave’s audio is handled entirely by the master, so it will do whatever you force it to (including If you set the rate to 192 in renoise with an outside editor it will work, and will even distribute to other asio drivers you may have installed (e.g. interface drivers>asio4all). But the offline mode does not use your audio driver, so it wont support 192 if renoise is not set to support it.
Hey the devs, please add 192khz for offline rendering!
Yeah, I have no problem listening to 192k 44.1 mp3 on crappy equipment or even studio headphones. It bangs on allright, I think. 128k is a sad deal for me, though.
Not sure if you are having a bit of fun or mixing up concepts here, but 192k is not the same as 192kHz!
When an audio file is referred to as having 192k quality, it is the network bandwidth (192 kilobit per second, or Kbit/s), not the internal audio rate…
@jurek why stop there?
Sorry ofc. I’ve meant the mp3 rates as compression bitrates in that paragraph, as opposed to high sampling rates. Should have used “kbps” vs “khz” more precisely. Just wanted to name it, as it also “bangs allright” for me.
As for “empty spaces in the spectrum” with going at high rates…uh, err…that space is “empty” for sure, you can’t hear that stuff anyways, and you’ll want to mix only up to max 18-20 khz freqs at high rates also. Maybe with a low pass filter in the end and you’ll most probably be going to downsample the final result to 44.1khz. The thing about such high rates is the frequency headroom that’s created, like when you mix and reserve a few db for peaks that’ll be squashed later on before normalising, so nothing clips. Many effects, plugins create suboptimal sound in the higher freq spectrum, with going at high rates this dirt might be shifted into the inaudible range while the audible range is processed at better quality.