24/44.1 or 24/48?

I have heard some say to stay at 44.1 because of the math. I have the option of either one. Which is best?

Also, on the new machines, is it worth going higher like 24/96?

48 is better. I don't know about 96 as just like Frank I have ADAT stuff I use and that is the setting for it. The last project I had when you compared what was done in 44.1 to 48k it only became really apparent when you got to the mastering. If you can record at 48 and leave it until the very last to apply the dither and convert to 44.1.

This has been discussed many times in this forum in the past, and I myself have conducted numerous experiments. Here's my summary:

All things being equal, higher sample rates sound better. However, each audio card is different, and a 44/24 signal on a good card is probably preferable to a 96/24 signal recorded on a bad card.

Also, consider your final format: if it's going to end up as a 44/16 CD track, you will have to convert sample rates in your mastering process - not impossible, but like any other processing, you're messing with the purity of the sound.

I started recording at 96 and then 88.2 about 18 months ago. The results have been very mixed. The files are massive, and Sonar will play fewer tracks in a mix. Also, I have been told that 88.2 is preferable to 96 since the math involved in converting 88.2 to 44.1 is much smoother than converting 96 to 44.1

I am back to recording at 44/24 and my life is a lot simpler. I upgraded my card to a LynxTwo and have never looked back. Again, this is not to say that higher sample rates can't improve the sound - but let's face it: most of us are dealing with much more prominent issues in our recording chain, and sample rate is towards the bottom of the list (in my opionion) in getting a better sound.

All:

I have stopped at 48Khz / 24 bit for all of the reasons stated above. Nyquist says 44.1 is enough for humans but electronics don't care about our limitations and 48Khz adds one more harmonic that may relieve a hard wall against realism. I've read some folks post about the benefits of 96Khz and 192 - I've played around there and can't for the life of me imagine staying there yet given the watermark delivery medium is still red book CD.

-D

ORIGINAL: pdarg

This has been discussed many times in this forum in the past, and I myself have conducted numerous experiments. Here's my summary:

All things being equal, higher sample rates sound better. However, each audio card is different, and a 44/24 signal on a good card is probably preferable to a 96/24 signal recorded on a bad card.

Fully agree, it simply matters as to what sounds best with your interface as there is no usable difference between 48kHz and 96kHz. Unlike the pictures would lead you to beleive, there is only ONE mathematical way for a waveform to proceed based on amplitude and time.

Also, consider your final format: if it's going to end up as a 44/16 CD track, you will have to convert sample rates in your mastering process - not impossible, but like any other processing, you're messing with the purity of the sound.

Absolutely! For film use 48kHz, for CD use 44.1kHz.

I started recording at 96 and then 88.2 about 18 months ago. The results have been very mixed. The files are massive, and Sonar will play fewer tracks in a mix. Also, I have been told that 88.2 is preferable to 96 since the math involved in converting 88.2 to 44.1 is much smoother than converting 96 to 44.1

Unfortunately all current SRC uses a round about method and does not directly divide, so there's no benefit.

I am back to recording at 44/24 and my life is a lot simpler. I upgraded my card to a LynxTwo and have never looked back. Again, this is not to say that higher sample rates can't improve the sound - but let's face it: most of us are dealing with much more prominent issues in our recording chain, and sample rate is towards the bottom of the list (in my opionion) in getting a better sound.

FWIW, I've felt like I've heard a slight improvement in the sound when going from 24/44 to 24/48.

Thanks guys.

Peace