http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_0DXxNeaQ0

1. not true. you need a dog's ear for this !
2. anyway, he still couldn't tell the difference between a 44.1 and 48 KHz sampling rate. There are many, many more important elements in the equation: quality of DA converters & associated filters being the most important.

Luc,

Yes I do believe your comment.   I'm uncertain as to why using 48kHz is beneficial when recording with Pianoteq?

Ian

You are surely right, although I have been told from mix engineers that many of them have audition capabilities damaged by the many hours spent on listening too loud. Surely an issue if unexpected high frequency whistles produced by some devices appear in the soundscape.

True... that's why there are recommended loudness levels for extended mixing hours...

Well, back to the topic: "Can anyone honestly say they hear a difference in audio quality through using 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz when playing live?"
And I say "no" again. Let's suppose someone hears above 20 KHz (I still doubt, but OK, let's say someone "perceives something", that's something I may admit), but that's not enough to hear the difference between 44 and 48 K. As I wrote before, there are many other factors in the equation: for example, some converters perform better @ 44.1 than 48 (or higher rates), because of their filtering design.
But OK, that's only my personal opinion. Again. :-)

You are surely right, although I have been told from mix engineers that many of them have audition capabilities damaged by the many hours spent on listening too loud. Surely an issue if unexpected high frequency whistles produced by some devices appear in the soundscape.

Please note: My response is somewhat off-topic to the subject matter, namely, sampling frequency.

To confirm Philippe's response, I find that it is useful to "put away" a given mix for a few days if one can afford to do so.  Why?  That's because our senses of hearing tend to become fatigued upon long mixing sessions, especially at high volumes of performances containing extended high frequency content.  When I personally return to a given mix after my ears have had a chance to "cool down", I usually use this mix as a learning device to decide how to re-record the live performance, rather than fixing it in the mix with post-processed EQ, compression, etc.

Personally, some of the submissions I have heard on this website (and on others) tend to sound as though they were among the first takes made with no mistakes; the performer was so happy with the technical excellence of his performance that he ignores (comparatively) the way that performance "sounds" to the ear.

Cheers,

Joe

1. not true. you need a dog's ear for this !

True. Some (as in - not all) younger people CAN hear over 20k. I know several of them.

Nobody could. Simple.

Not so simple.   A young person might be able to hear 24kHz

Ian