Do Your Record at Higher than 96 kHz and if so, Why?

The thread title says it all...also feel free to participate if you have a strong reason not to record at sample rates higher than 96 kHz.
 

Do you think there is a difference in quality between 192 and 96 kHz?

What I don't get is why no one seems to be recording at 88.2 kHz.  I don't because my current rig won't support it...but the downsampling from 96 k just puts you in the "bad math" zone.

Dan. The "bad math zone" as you call it is now old school (and probably now a myth). Any modern computer with decent CPU power can handle a conversion from 96KHz down to 44Khz mathematically accurately. It is a "human" idea that it is more accurate to "halve" a sample rate e.g. 88.4 to 44.1 or 176.8 to 44.1 etc.  Math is math and any modern computer can compute the conversion from a non-multiple of 44.1 (192 or 96) down to 44.1. I've read research on this and will try to find it again and post it in this thread

MiltonYes higher sample rates DO give higher fidelity

 
Not for recording/playback they don't. 
 
They give higher frequencies and potentially lower latencies. You can't get any "higher fidelity" once you've already captured everything.

When the Nyquist theorem, and the range of human hearing
come into play, there is perceptually no difference...

The range of human hearing being 20 Hz to 20Khz,
and knowing that, to accurately capture that sound
you only need to sample at 2 times the highest frequency
@ 20Khz you only require a sample rate of 40Khz to capture
the range of human hearing.  So, accordingly, there is really
no need for higher sample rates.  What you do get is 
a more accurate snapshot of the waveform, but, since
it is, for all intents and purposes, not audible to the human
ear, it's irrelevant.  The ONLY sound residing in those upper sample
rates are HIGH HARMONICS...but, we can't really even hear them.

44.1 / 2 = 22.05 = 22 Khz that can be captured...well above 
our hearing capability..unless you are part K-9...(not K-12 or K-14)

So, no, it's not necessary...this debate has gone on for years...
If you go by the science...NO ...not required....

Those who claim they can hear it are, by sciences definition are...
delusional...as the human ear can't even hear those higher harmonics.
You may THINK you can...but that's a "perceptual" thing and not
plausible...

What matters more is bit depth...32 bit is better then 24 bit is better
the 16 bit.  THAT does make a difference in digital audio....but, as the standard
is still 16 bit 44.1 Khz....and you will be "dithering" to get
there....it becomes a mute point...until such time as the standard is
raised to 24 bit...

As I said...this debate has gone on since the advent of higher sample rates...and will
continue to do so...

Archiving takes or clips might be useful new feature.

microapp
I see no real benefit in recording at 96+ and downsampling to 48 or 44 in order to mix. Most folks can get <= 10 ms latency even at 44.

 
I agree except for situations I've mentioned before, where instruments or processors don't oversample, and therefore sound better when recorded at 96 kHz. However, as the improvement is in the audio range, downsampling to 44.1 or 48 kHz preserves any audible benefits.

cclarry
So, no, it's not necessary...this debate has gone on for years...
If you go by the science...NO ...not required....

I don't think there's much debate that theoretically, higher sample rates aren't necessary. But there are so many wild cards. For example, one reason why some people might hear the difference between 192 kHz audio and 44.1 CDs in tests may have nothing to do with the sample rate, but instead be due to the 192 kHz signal being played from a hard drive, which has less jitter than something played back from an optical drive.
 
I couldn't hear a significant difference between 44.1 and 96 kHz until I started doing lots of ITB work with amp sims, virtual instruments, and dynamics processors. But it had nothing to do with human hearing, it was all about technological limitations that caused foldover distortion in the audible range at lower sampling rates.
 
Filtering has always been a consideration too, although filtering technology has improved dramatically since the CD was introduced. So the reason I'm curious is because some people swear they hear a difference with 192 compared to 96. In the case of the Be6 speakers, the response is only up to 40 kHz so in theory, 96 kHz and 192 kHz should have the high frequency components reproduced equally well.
 
The whole debate reminds me of cables. I was in a studio in Chicago and there was a vehement argument going on about whether cables made a difference. It was the old "it's just wire, you moron" vs. "but I can hear a difference." I finally stepped in and asked what the outputs and inputs feeding the cable were...and yes, with a tube amp and a long cable, capacitance can affect pickup tone...but with a high-output synth going into a mixer, "it's just wire."
 
It would be nice to determine once and for all whether people can hear a difference with double-blind testing that goes beyond Meyer-Moran, but it would be even nicer to find out why people hear a difference if there is a technological reason. I'm not ruling out sample rates per se, but I tend to think it might be something that's a byproduct of sample rates.
 
And I STILL think DSD sounds better than CDs...but in the immortal words of Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back me up."

And we can't ignore the psychological component, like the recent study showing that people would say a "more expensive" red wine was consistently better than one they were told was less expensive, even though it was the same wine.
 
This is true with audio, too. I was mixing a song once where the lead guitarist insisted on the guitar being louder. It was plenty loud, but you know how guitarists are   I realize the customer is always right, but I really didn't want to ruin the mix. So I put tape on an adjacent mixer channel that wasn't connected to anything and wrote "guitar" on it. When he asked for more level, I'd turn up the fader very slowly. "Is this loud enough?" "No, louder!" So I'd "turn up" the bogus fader some more. Eventually, he'd say "YES! Now you have it! See how much better it sounds now?"
 

Like most attempts at high end, if there is a difference between 44.1 and 96 or 768 it can only be heard on a good system and in good rooms by trained ears.  Just like converters and mics and preamps and such.  It is a small diff that most people don't get because they simply can't hear it.  Musicians and engineers etc. w/ ears attuned to the nth degree can tell some differences, but I imagine would be hard pressed if blind tested on ear buds.
 
Of course, many of us get our rocks off on the last inch of quality we can squeeze out of sound whether by hardware or technique, and I warrant many of us get better performances and give greater detail to our work if we believe we can hear such differences.  So it is worthwhile, even if only psychologically.  But that doesn't mean you have to go all DSD or only use the most exotic hardware etc.  The best bet is to do testing yourself on your system and see if you can hear the difference, then decide if filling up hard drives like they are floppies is worth it to you.
 
Me, I record at 44.1 - I haven't heard enough difference to switch to 96 even tho it is becoming standard.  I do make sure the effects upsample and turn the older Cake synths etc. to high render rates.  That I can hear a difference in the smoothness.
 
@

dimelives1
Since the thread has already shifted gears a bit, I might as well ask -- Does anyone here simply record at 44.1 kHz and not bother with dithering at all (in terms of sample rate)?... In his Sonar Power! books, I believe Scott says that he likes to record at 48 kHz, but can our ears really hear a difference with the additional 3.9 kHz, especially after it's dithered down to 44.1? What would be the other benefits of recording at 48 vs. 44.1?
 
And I already see from a few posts above that the old notion of 88.2 kHz being easier math, and therefore produces better sonic results, is basically debunked at this point...? That was going to be my other question.

You can't dither the sample rate.  Dither is noise added to cover artifacts cause by bit depth reduction.  
 
A high sample rate gives one a wider bandwidth. It does not increase accuracy. 

Call me "Old Skool" but I simply record at 24/44.1k and let it roll.  Since I write and record mostly stuff for demos and film/TV, and this is their preferred format anyway, it would be a waste of time to record higher sample rates.
 
Since the majority of music being consumed these days is reduced to MP3 anyway, and played on earbuds and tiny speakers, the question arises... Does it even matter much anymore to record anything above CD quality?
 
And  yes, I know there are audiophiles out there who appreciate and demand the absolute best..... but I do believe they are a small segment of the listening audience.... perhaps not here, but certainly on iTunes...

Sacalait
I'm recording at 96.  I've listened to some stuff I did at 44/48 on a Roland VS1880 a few years back that sounds every bit as good as what I'm doing today!  I HAVE found that if you're doing editing- like pitch correction, especially- the higher sampling rates are beneficial because there's more resolution.  

No there isn't more resolution. This is a myth. All you get with a higher sample rate is greater bandwidth. 
 
And you contradicted yourself with "I've listened to some stuff I did at 44/48 on a Roland VS1880 a few years back that sounds every bit as good as what I'm doing today!" They can't both be true.