Actually, I don't feel the need of 96kHz mixes. Something that sometime I really need (and it's already here with digital cinema) is uncompressed audio. More than one time I found the (not so bad, for the time when it was born) Dolby data compression (the ac3 like compression that the DMU do for the MODisk) to be really annoying and changing a lot the sound. But in the end it really depends from the kind of movie; and actually, the real big deal is the sound system of cinema theater: 8 times out of 10, the cinema has wrong level, or outdated ampli and speakers, or wrong sound correction. Just my 2cent

96 kHz and 32-bit floating point aren't for the final mix. They're for intermediate processing. In the final mix you shouldn't hear a difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz (unless you're Batman or the mix was downsampled poorly). Likewise, 20-bit is adequate to represent all of the 120 dB dynamic range you'll ever get out of a real system (blame physics).

BUT, when putting a waveform through a lot of processing in a DAW, you want lots of headroom in both frequency and amplitude, to prevent unnecessary computation noise, aliasing, etc. Like photocopying a photocopy, the better the quality of each copy, the less degradation there will be in the final product.

Good question, i'd like to A-B some 96k vs 48k myself.

Although from a theoretical point of view, a sample rate of 96kHz means the signal can carry frequencies up to 48kHz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate), and we can't really hear above 20kHz (most of us are lucky to hear up to 17kHz!). Whereas a sample rate of 48kHz can, theoretically, carry signal up to 24kHz, which is still beyond our range of hearing. Also, i don't think any widely used speakers are capable of reproducing any frequencies over 20kHz.

As to whether a higher sample rate affects the frequencies we can hear, i can't say. It may be possible, but i think the benefits to a typical audience would be negligible.

On the upside, FX recorded at high sample rates won't lose all their high frequencies when they're pitched down! (as far as i know...)

"I'm a total stickler when it comes to quality."

So.....

you must have noticed the X Curve in every screening you have ever been to then?

and if thats such a worry do you also notice the sync difference between the front row and the back row in a theatre?

Some Blu-Ray titles are offered at 24/96. So far, they mainly seem to be live concert recordings.

Given that major movie theaters are playing back basically mp3 quality audio, and that the film festival circuit is even worse (Sundance only supports Stereo LoRo or LtRt encoding for a phasey LCRS mix!), I have resigned myself to the fact that 48kHz is just the standard.

If i can I will always record at 192 kHz, and I can still hear 17 kHz despite being considerably older than 27. I have students who are considerably younger than 27 who struggle to hear 13 kHz.

The higher sampling rate does make a difference when it comes to reverberation, as it works in a similar manner to an LFO (Low Frequency Oscillator), so inaudible frequencies affect audible frequencies.

However, all of the cinemas I ever go to are lucky if they have the projector focused regularly, never mind having the audio properly calibrated.

We will move to 192 kHz eventually, but there is so much that has to catch up first.

The first thing that I would love is a loudspeaker with a flat frequency response even up to 17 kHz, even my favourite Genelecs colour the sound.

I'd say its pretty impossible in the near term and pretty unlikely in the long term.

First off, sample rate depth has serious consequences for the way that DAW and digitial processing work, and mixing is a processor intense activity. In order for a process like an eq or summing mixer or distortion to work correctly, it has to do its process at double or 4x the rate it would at 48k. Ever actually try mixing something complex at 192k? Give it a spin and let us know how your computer holds up.

Also, have you done a double-blind listening test between 48k and 96k? Are you sure you can hear a difference? I can certainly set one up for you. What if I use 48k source sample rate material recorded outdoors and then encode each into AAC? Because another issue is the production process: Most audio for films is not captured at super high sample rates. Its captured at 48k, so unless you're asking your location sound dept to run at 192k then you're just upsampling the dialogue and pfx anyway.

Actually, that first point is the biggest one. You're crippling your computing power and you are doing it for what will amount to zero sonic benefit. This is doubly true when you consider that location source audio is captured at 48k, and the final distribution master is encoded in a lossy format.

In the end quality is about content. Mixing decisions are about story, not sample rates. I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm just trying to steer you away from the placebo mentality that makes Monster Cables so much money. Trust your ears, but only when your eyes aren't involved.