Higher sample rates

[Clockwork Creep]

I am really ignorant in the theory, but I've always been a firm believer that 48khz sample rate is as high as anyone ever needs, and going higher makes no difference.
This guy says otherwise:

Snake oil?

I want to explore the arguments of high sample rate advocates.
let me demonstrate my ignorance: Maybe higher sample rates can make a difference in the mixing experience?
For example, can the high pitches positively affect how hardware or software, like compressors react to the signal? Or can combined high pitches of different tracks affect lower pitches?

Can higher sample rates be beneficial in any way?
Would recording mics in higher sample rate, then downsampling make any sense?

 

[antcarrier]

Can higher sample rates be beneficial in any way?
Would recording mics in higher sample rate, then downsampling make any sense?

There are benefits - but besides latency - only during digital processing, mostly because higher sample rates have less aliasing during processing. For recording audio, there is zero benefit, and you will actually get distortion from your ADC at high sample rates. It actually makes more sense in this regard to record at a lower rate, then upsample for post processing in you DAW. Just bear in mind, SRC is not perfect either and you will be degrading the audio with each SRC.

This is an interesting article, which highlights a benefit of recording audio with low sample rates: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mas...ot-high-resolution-quot-audio-processing.html

Digital audio is all about compromises, unfortunately. I expect that what that guy is hearing that he likes at 192 KHz is reduced aliasing. Aliasing sucks.

 

[axifist]

AFAIK his thinking from 7:22 to 10:00 is wrong. And he knows it. His theory (starting at 9:47), that with a higher samplerate we wouldn't need to "shift this sample" has the big flaw, that we still would have to shift it, just less, which would still make the stereo image worse, only less. This article https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html and the author's video http://downloads.xiph.org/video/Digital_Show_and_Tell-720p.webm show that his thinking is wrong (edit: To be exact, it's in the video at 7:07 - 7:28 and at 20:54 - 21:55, short and sharp ).

His "main reason" being the "highest quality studio" ... Well, I'd say having a decent monitor, a room professionally treated for hightest audio quality etc. is MUCH more important than any of what he says. And to be honest, looking at the background of the video, that doesn't seem to be case here (just guessing of course).