[speak_on]

44.1 is "enough" only in theory. This assumes a physically impossible steep filter. Realistically, frequencies around 20 kHz will create audible artifacts (aliasing). So yes, a trained ear can tell the diffrenece between 44.1 and even 48 kHz. Like many other commenters in this thread, you are mixing up math theory with physical limitations of AD/DA converters. Oversampling is a common way to address this limitation, but strictly speaking 44.1 kHz is not as obviously "enough" as it seems.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Realistically, frequencies around 20 kHz will create audible artifacts (aliasing)

The energy of the signal components above the Nyquist is generally very low, and very few double blind tests have given any indication that humans can detect the resulting aliasing (even though many people claim to be able to do, almost always in non-double-blind environments).

Badly written digital synthesis can generate high energy signal components above 22kHz, but that's because they're badly written, not because the theory is wrong.

[speak_on]

Genereally very low for a single track? What about 200 tracks? Badly written synthesis, or badly recorded live instruments, or bounced and re-bounced dozens of times... we are not talking about the quality-defining aspect here. You can produce an excellent mix on KRKs connected directly to a MacBook.

This space is not driven by a single precise formula. 48/96 kHz helps some engineers to produce better sounding mixes. Can everyone hear the extended range of Adam tweeters? Probably not. But some can, and they benefit from that. Even if there is no double-blind study to prove this in absolute terms.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

If you recorded 200 tracks of the same instrument, so that the partials above Nyquist were all broadly the same, then sure, summing the tracks would include summing 200 copies of the aliasing results too.

But very little music is like that, and the energy profile above Nyquist will differ dramatically. Consequently, you're not summing a set of identical aliasing results, and in general, the results will still be undetectable to almost everyone.

Jacob Collier routinely works with 300+ tracks in Logic. He doesn't worry about this sort of thing, and neither do the Grammy voters who love what he does.

[speak_on]

Got it. Grammy voters love Collier's mixes. What about Tony Maserati? He can clearly tell the difference between 44.1 and 88.2. If your argument is that these engineers can't hear the difference - you are going to be disappointed. They can. Even Dave Pensado who mixes at 16/44.1, does that because he rejects the idea, he can hear the difference according to him.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I can find no evidence that Maserati (or 99% of any other mix or mastering engineers) has ever tested his "appreciation" of the "crunch" at 44.1 in a double blind environment.

It is always amazing how much that is claimed about what people can hear fails to show up when tested in this, the only acceptable scientific way.

Perhaps Maserati has done this, and could still tell the difference. In which case, he should carry on! But he should carry on anyway! People should do what brings them joy, and if he likes working at 44.1kHz or whatever, he should absolutely do that.

What people should not do is lecture about stuff that isn't true and/or isn't demonstrable in proper test settings, and most (not all, but most) of the SR stuff fits into one or other or both of those categories.

[speak_on]

Just to wrap this up. Is your professional opinion that techniques like antialiasing/oversampling/etc and any sample rate above 44.1 kHz are essentially an industry-wide scam and the perceived benefits are not true?

And since there are no double-blind studies supporting this tech, both using and adding any of these features to your software would only be propagating this scam further? I.e. far more than just lecturing "about stuff that isn't true" this actually physically implements features that are not true?.. OK, at least you are staying consistent.

(Also, looking forward to you discovering that there are not many double-blind studies supporting the "delusion" that the effect of a low pass filter is real and not just something we can measure but can't hear.)

[vor_]

Do you have citations for this claim? The "golden ears" argument is often employed by audiophiles, but even the cheapest converters oversample by up to several hundred times as well as employ antialiasing filters.