Audio Sample Rates Debate

Discussions center on the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, the sufficiency of 44.1kHz sample rates for human hearing versus higher rates like 192kHz, and issues like aliasing, anti-aliasing filters, and oversampling.

📉 Falling 0.4x Science
3,229
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#9523
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
2
2008
1
2009
5
2010
12
2011
37
2012
133
2013
88
2014
193
2015
138
2016
162
2017
206
2018
179
2019
218
2020
247
2021
312
2022
334
2023
364
2024
334
2025
189
2026
75

Keywords

TL index.htm wikipedia.org DR en.m github.io infinitewave.ca index.html FFT DX7 frequency sampling sample aliasing audio filter window mic speaker frequencies

Sample Comments

ncmncm Jan 15, 2022 View on HN

Hint: 44100 Hz is plenty to exceed any human's perceptual resolution.

hprotagonist Mar 27, 2020 View on HN

not really. it's just an admission that sampling frequency matters.

theon144 Jan 28, 2024 View on HN

Just higher than 80Hz should be enough via Nyquist's theorem, or no?

mtreis86 May 13, 2024 View on HN

Nyquist frequency applies here too?

Lots of devices which sample at 96kHz still have a 20kHz roll off filter :-(

btilly Jun 3, 2022 View on HN

You failed to understand Claude Shannon. Look up "aliasing distortion".

Senji Oct 21, 2016 View on HN

You should be ok as long as you keep it bellow the nyquist freq.

willis936 Feb 20, 2022 View on HN

Why would the sample rate be below 10 kHz?

adgjlsfhk1 Jan 12, 2026 View on HN

They're both fine (as long as the source is band limited to 20khz which it should be anyway).

afhof Apr 16, 2013 View on HN

It seems that the Nyquist-Shannon sampling rate would be too low for the results to be accurate.