mettelus

MarioD
So my question would be why record at a higher kHz if you can't tell the difference?

I think the bottom line for this is not the capture or final medium but the processing that is done in the middle. Some VSTs can/do take advantage of higher sampling rates which can be audible. Even with that being fact, the "how audible" continues to fuel debates. The end result really boils down to personal preference.

I may have to revisit this but my question is although the higher sample rates may improve what is done in the middle can you hear the difference in a CD?  CD quality is what I'm recording for so if there is an audible difference to some maybe I should revisit this as my prior test was listening to CD quality.
 
I am not trying to be a jerk I would just like to know if a higher sample rate would improve my CDs.
 

Craig had a nice thread a few months back on audible differences using amp sims; but as you said, it is something you would need to determine for yourself.
 
For me, it is interesting to get into these discussions to understand things better, but as soon as I get enticed by "new technology" I force myself to step back and think about things like Console Emulators, Tape Emulators, etc., which essentially "insert noise" to add realism. It is almost like digital is already "too good" from that perspective. In these days of "robotic drums," "perfect pitch," and "perfect timing," the thing that is beginning to make music unique is the "human part"... it seems to be fading fast.

MarioD
I may have to revisit this but my question is although the higher sample rates may improve what is done in the middle can you hear the difference in a CD?  CD quality is what I'm recording for so if there is an audible difference to some maybe I should revisit this as my prior test was listening to CD quality.
 
I am not trying to be a jerk I would just like to know if a higher sample rate would improve my CDs.

Yes, it is possible for stuff processed in the middle at a higher rate to sound better even when converted to lower rate. Whether it actually makes a difference for a given person depends on two things:
 
1. Is any processing being done that benefits from higher rates? It only makes any difference for certain things, especially things that creates distortion/saturation.
 
2. Is the processing that would benefit not already being upsampled to a higher rate? There's no processing improvement from running Sonar at a higher rate if all of your plugins that would benefit are already doing their processing at a higher rate internally, as many do. FI, every amp sim that I'm aware of already does it's processing at higher rates, as do most lookahead limiters/loudness maximizers that I'm familiar with. 
 
Whether you have anything that would benefit depends on exactly what plugins you use, and even how you use them.

I wonder what affect recording at higher rates would have, if any, on editing audio clips, like slip-stretching... The longer a clip is stretched the more distorted it becomes so would the end result of stretching a 96kHz sample be any different than a 44.1?

Read an article last year about a dude recording tree sounds.
 
He had determined trees creak at about 70k.
 
Good reason to use way high rates.

Everyone should read this.
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/
 
I apologise if someone already posted it, I didn't have time to read all of this thread.

I'll give my take for what it's worth....
 
I've tried testing this out at all different sampling rates over the years. I've done the blind tests, I've tried great interfaces, cheap interfaces, line recording, mic recording....I hear differences but I can't tell you what they are. The differences that I can sort of explain:
 
Cheap interfaces: They sound better at higher sampling rates but don't get too excited because they aren't sounding better at all when compared to something good. At higher rates they sound as good as a really good interface at 44.1 in MY experience.
 
Good interfaces sound the same to me at all sample rates. However, I HAVE (like Craig) noticed differences with guitar sims at higher rates too. BUT, to my ears it's not enough of a difference for me to go that high. As a matter of fact, I prefer the warmer, grittier sound of a Realtek stock card for guitar sims. Why you may ask? They aren't as clean yet they aren't dirty in a bad way. The filters make dirty rock sounds and lightly dirty sounds more pleasing to my ears. I know...that sounds ridiculous. But it's funny, all the guitar tunes I've done on my little internet machines running Realteks via ASIO I always know without thinking. I can't even explain what the heck it is...I just prefer some of the sounds I've created using guitar sims as well as some of my guitar pre-amps through those cheesy stock cards.
 
When I have noticed fairly noticeable differences in higher rates, it has been in a mic'd situation. Example...
 
I recorded an orchestra one time at 24/48. They tried a song they weren't quite ready to do and screwed up after about a minute. They wanted to try it one more time. Just for my head, I saved the other project, opened up a new one and set it for 24/96. When I got the projects home and worked on mixing them, I noticed the higher sample rate just sounded different. I can't even tell you it was better....it was just "different." The only way I can explain it would be "more brilliant sounding". Maybe a cleaner high end? I don't even know.
 
So in my opinion, I think it matters what you record as well. Meaning, a hard rock, metal band or techno artist is not going to benefit from 24/96 (unless a synth used might) but I sincerely believe an orchestra just might. The reason for my theory? The more sonic something is, the more I feel it will not benefit from higher sample rates. I have no idea if I'm right in my belief and to be honest, I haven't given it much thought. The reason for this?
 
Like John T, my main concern is getting all my sounds to be right before I print anything. Digital is going to give you exactly what you put into it.....even at 16/44. Good sound in, good sound comes out regardless of bit/sample rates. I feel a good interface is important...but sample rates....I'll never go higher than 48 on my end. No particular reason other than the majority of my clients use 24/48....the people that taught me used it and it's just become a part of the way I work. :)
 
-Danny

Thanx Drewfx1 for your response.

I mostly use Amplitude 3 for my guitars and the look-a-head Waves CDA drum processor.  That may be why I didn't hear any difference but I am going to try again.

Thanx again.

BlixYZ
Everyone should read this.
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

great read, i'd mark this helpful but someone beat me to it :)

Thank you for the link.
 
Reality! Truly refreshing.
 
I love science and informed people.
 
I wish, daily, more elected persons knew how to think.
 
So:::: audible differences for higher sample rates may be due to badly designed converters introducing pleasant distortion! 
 
-------------------------
 
Once we have converters we "trust" the next question: use 88 or 96?
 
I do not do much for video/dvd which is at 48/96.  Easy conversion. But DVD may soon become the standard.
 
But how are the conversion formulas for 88 to 48?
 
And for 96 to 44?
 
And really, should we give a poo when most users listen to MP3 files with variable rates and low frequencies?