Do you work at higher sampling rates (96kHz, 192kHz, etc)? Why or why not?
ASKED BY · Jeff Francis · COLUMBIA, SC · 28 OCT 2026 · ▶ 00:08:25
Works at 96 kHz for better sound and lower latency; avoids 192 kHz due to file size and diminishing returns; converter quality matters more than sample rate.
Records at 48 kHz for post-production as broadcast standard; questioned whether latency improvements at higher sample rates are perceptually significant given converter processing.
Lower latency at higher sample rates improves foldback monitoring; higher sample rates benefit nonlinear processing like compression and distortion; most converters work at ~11 MHz internally.
In live sound uses 96 kHz for lower latency; in post-production uses 48 kHz as broadcast standard but records at 96 kHz for better noise suppression; uses 192 kHz for detailed sound effects.
Summarised by AI from what the panel said. Watch the moment for the full answer.
From the transcript.
Machine-transcribed, so it may contain errors. Every timestamp opens the episode at that second.
7:56happening at the Scarlett side. If you see the audio meters bouncing, but you're not hearing it coming out, then it's something within the Scarlett. But if you're not seeing any movement in the meters, then it's probably something in the software, just a troubleshooting step. Courtney? One thing I looked at is, there's a multi-channel audio interface. It probably requires the ASIO drivers. And sometimes, you know,
8:25Focusrite installs their own version and Windows installs its own version, you might look at reloading or checking for updates in your ASIO drivers because sometimes driver issues can create problems like this. Alexander, let's go to the next question. Jeff Francis in Columbia, South Carolina is asking, do you work at higher sampling rates, 96 kHz, 192 kHz, etc.? Why or why not? How about you, Alexander? What do you do?
8:56Well, if I have a console that can do 96, I'm always going to choose 96 because I just think it sounds better. Right, right. Also, latency is going to be different. Latency will be lower comparatively to 48 kilohertz at the same buffer. So that's one of the reasons why. When recording in a studio, I tend to stick with 96. I've never bothered with, I just find there's, yes, I've tested converters at 192 and I find
9:21that's just diminishing returns after 96 and just makes my files just absolutely gargantuan in comparison. So I've never really felt a need for that. I think that there are, when it comes to converters, the converters matter more than just the sample rate. Cause I think, you know, you'll see a $200 interface that advertises it can do 192 kilohertz sample rate, but you know, a much higher end converter, say a $5,000 high end ADD converter at 96,
9:50it's still going to sound better, right? So it's the number, the higher number doesn't automatically mean you're going to have better sound quality. It does also mean that your files are going to be bigger. If I money no object and if I had the patience, I've never worked with it, but I've had people absolutely rave about DSD audio, which is not PCM based.
10:13And people tell me that, in fact, actually PS Audio in their Colorado facility, they're a company that makes hi-fi equipment they actually just a couple years ago they opened up a recording studio and they're obsessed with dsd audio and i always hear paul mcgowan talking about how um how it's the closest thing to analog that you're going to get but it's a pain to work with
10:35because you're working with a system that can you can't really edit it like it has to actually be converted back to pcm after like you can't just work with it in pro tools after you've recorded DSD. So if I were to go with something higher fidelity, I would probably get like a radar system or something that recorded DSD audio. For a PCM-based system, I probably wouldn't bother
10:57with anything above 96. So I'm sorry I was giggling, but when I hear audio people talk about gargantuan files, I'm like, oh, Alexander, come on. For audio. Okay. For audio, it's big. Okay. Mickey, your thoughts? Yeah, I go graduate with files for audio. Higher sampling rates. Speaking in terms of live sound environment, if there are no other dependencies, I will run the board at 96
11:33because that allows for lower latency input-output in terms of the board's actual processing. But if something relies on the board being 48kHz, then I'll have to run at that lower sample rate. With regards to location sound, post-production sound, 48kHz is the broadcast standard for film and TV. But if I am doing both location sound and post-production sound on a narrative or say a long form, say documentary or unscripted program, I will record in 96 kilohertz and do post in 96.
12:17My reasoning for that is I find I am able to do much, much cleaner and more natural sounding noise suppression when pushed harder at 96 kilohertz compared to 48 kilohertz. But I won't do that if another house is doing post-production sound. Because again, the standard is 48 kilohertz. If the spec sheet says 48, I'm going to deliver 48. It's only when I'm also the one doing post-it, I will record the 96.
Similar questions
from other episodes.
About the same products and topics, most related first.