i find 0 Hz produces a really warm tone that you cant replicate with higher sample rates

Always been a 48 kHz guy myself

96k makes good sense. Blu-Ray quality, labels request that for archiving, etc.

I always mix all my songs through 96khz and it immediately sounds better

ok is a old video but work at 96khz sample rate is best option to avoid aliasing introduced from saturation plug in (especially) that in a full mix in the end will make it sounds so bad in hi frequencies

Ironically as a deaf person this is fascinating

I didn't understand a word you just said but it sounds very interesting lmao

I have had the option of high sample rates for a long time, but the final format for the film scores I worked on was always 48k, 24 bit.  My decision was to track at the sample rate of the final (dub stage), so I recorded and mixed everything at 48/24.  My experience is that Sample Rate Conversion does much more damage to the sound than any benefit that may be gained using high sample rates.  The 3 worst words in digital audio: Sample Rate Conversion.
Your Mileage May Differ :)

high sample rate is really useful for resampling in sound design tbh, its nice having that high head room when you pitch stuff down many octaves down or really on weird distortion and other audio mangling

I've worked over the years at Universal, Enterprise, many big studios and the most common preferred bit and sample rate is 48K 24Bit, so i've always worked at these rates plus the plugins function much better unless you have an HD system

My Tascam maxes out at 48/24, so I'll vote for that... Second place would be a Maxell xll-ii running at double speed 🤷‍♂️ ;)

Your favorite plugin manufacturer Acustica Audio recommends running their plugins @96k :)

The Resampling feature at 6:00 is basically how accurate you want sample stretching to be. When you stretch a sample to be a different length than the original, you might run into these really digitized, computery artifacts (especially if you make the sample slower). The higher the resampling the better the stretching will be, and the less audible the artifacts.

I use 96khz only to hear music at that sample rate. When i open the DAW i set it at 48khz again lol

192k yields some unruly file sizes to catalog, really only noticed a difference with a client playing classical music on a 9’ Grand piano with tremendous dynamic range in the music. Also it greatly reduces your access to how many plug ins can be instantiated. I agree-24bit/48k is the ideal tracking paradigm.

I write electronic music at 96khz because I can get lower latency on soft synths, at the cost of more CPU. For mixing purposes 48khz with plug-in oversampling like you said it's the way to go.

I use 3 audio interfaces so I don't have to switch between 44.1/48 or greater sample rates.  I feel 24bit/48khz is perfect for videos and most applications.  When I hire a client for professional vocal audio-work, I'm perfectly happy with receiving studio-grade 24bit/48khz audio files.

I have never gone over 48Khz while recording for this same reason + takes less HD space. Many pro producers telling "record highest possible" without actually understanding what they are promoting.

I used to run at 48KHz, but recently moved to 96KHz since I now have a much more powerful computer.
Pretty much all plugins support it now and any that do not internally oversample will benefit from 96KHz natively due to the reduced aliasing. Wont make any difference to those that do already oversample though.

I usually use 192KHz 24 bit but in some games (Cyberpunk 2077 for instance) the audio clips and you have to use 48KHz (24 bit) to prevent that.
But i'm no producer or musician, only an enthousiast.