Post

96k audio is so silly. only dogs are going to be able to hear those frequencies. you some kind of dog listening to that album? you ganna wag your fluffy little tail listening to music? you want a treat for paying for hi-res on qobuz? awwhh, good puppy!

2/9/26, 10:22 am36 reposts116 likes

LaserP

@laserp.bsky.social

2 Sept

Less latency when recording analogue instruments if your processor can handle it. Cats also have a higher hearing range

vimae 🪻

@mae.wtf

2 Sept

would it not just increase latency because of the increased amount of samples that need processing through?

LaserP

@laserp.bsky.social

2 Sept

Samples / hz = processing time (under perfect conditions) 64 samples / 48000 = 1.33ms 64 / 96000 = 0.66ms Assuming the processor can handle keeping up with double the work, higher rate with same sample size provides better latency, but it's almost imperceptible

cinnamon 🐇 🏳️‍⚧️

@plushie.holdings

2 Sept

u can also gain 0.7ms of latency reduction by sitting 22 centimeters closer to your studio monitors

cinnamon 🐇 🏳️‍⚧️

@plushie.holdings

2 Sept

if your processor can handle a block of 256 samples of 96k in 3ms it can handle 128 samples of 48k in 3ms tho surely

LaserP

@laserp.bsky.social

2 Sept

True, but some plugins, especially guitar amp sims, have a nasty warbling sound in the high end due to some nyquist frequency stuff that goes away when given more overhead with higher rates

elke

@elke.cafe

2 Sept

fun activity: render song at 192khz then slow down 4x so all the weird high frequency stuff becomes audible

Nugget

@nuggetthenonbiner.bsky.social

2 Sept

What if we doubled it?

meowable

@able.moe

2 Sept