I am personally holding out for 128/384K to finally have true audio... Unfortunately, my ears will probably be 8/10K by then, but I will refuse to admit that to anyone (unless they yell at me so I can hear what they are saying).

Bristol_Jonesey
I'm with Sander on this one, from blind tests I cannot detect ANY difference between 44.1 & and any higher sampling rate, so as far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no point.

the point is that any in-the-box processing will be more accurate

Which is why there's the upsampling feature which you can enable when you do actually hear a difference. 

Bristol_Jonesey
I'm with Sander on this one, from blind tests I cannot detect ANY difference between 44.1 & and any higher sampling rate, so as far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no point.

There is absolutely zero audible difference for individual tracks. There is, however, a noticeable difference in headroom when summing.
 
Regards,
Dan

Dan,
Other than possibly a fraction of a db due to true peak issues, how does 96K give more headroom than 44.1K/48K?

Sanderxpander
If you ask me what I personally think I say it's unnecessary to record at 96KHz. But do whatever you feel like. 

like I said, for sound quality - sure... humans cant tell the difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz, i get the science there and AGREE....

that is NOT the reason I am recording at 96 kHz.   Again, the reason I am is to ensure I don't ever get foldover distortion from certain VST FX and synths.

Remember, this option to upsample any VST just came in the Foxboro update, so I guess now I could go back down to 48 kHz, but hey, my PC can handle it.

I am thinking of recording @192K then mastering down into 128K MP3.
 

microapp
I am thinking of recording @192K then mastering down into 128K MP3.
 

like I said, I am not recording at 96 kHz for the better audio quality - I know that is nonsense.   I'm doing it for the OTHER reason (foldover distortion)

microapp
Dan,
Other than possibly a fraction of a db due to true peak issues, how does 96K give more headroom than 44.1K/48K?

Sorry, not sample rate. I talking bit depth here. The only reason I record at 96K is because my interface works better there than at 44.1K or 48K. The Presonus drivers were never very good for the Audiobox 44VSL, but they are somehow rock solid at 24/96. As a bonus, I get awesomely low latency. Bit depth is far more important than sample rate.
 
Mixing at 16bit vs 24bit is very different. Everything sounds more transparent (to me). YMMV.
 
Regards,
Dan

Dan,
Agreed, 24 vs 16 bits is a must for mix-down.
96K bitrate is a personal choice at least most of the time.