3.9 kHz

3900 Hz

>>122895856
Just convert between them. No one will tell the difference. ;)

>>122895856
no. theoretically 38kHz would be enough, the overhead is just to give the anti-aliasing filters some headroom.

In simple terms music is just sound waves and to reproduce any wave you need two points (the max and min) you cant hear above 20kHZ. So to reproduce any sound you can hear you need around 40k samples per second. I read the white paper for the CD standard years ago and i cant remember why they settled for 44.1kHZ probably some nerd shit. Also you cant hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit our ears dont have that much dynamic range just enjoy your digital music. You also cant hear the difference between 320kbit mp3 and 6mbit flacs dont let vir/g/ins ruin your enjoyment of music

>>122895888
based

For listening purposes, no. A 44.1kHz sampling rate is more than sufficient to capture every audible frequency. Higher sampling rates are useful in recording, mixing, and mastering because it's a lot easier to write an an antialiasing filter to remove inaudible frequencies than if you record, mix, and master at 44.1. Once the mastering process is done there's no need for more than 44.1 when listening.

>>122895856
48000 is an integer multiple of more different common video frame rates, which makes video editing easier.