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...

I recorded a 2 track session with a friend at 192 once. I totally loved what we played that night. :-)
 
I usually record at 48 if there are no synths in the project and 96 if there are synths.
 
I suppose I often use 96 when there are 8 or fewer tracks.
 
When I'm practicing I usually us e 48 because all the take lanes stack up and it takes a long time to bounce. I can easily play 25 times through a song on any given night. I've seen take lanes hit very high counts.
 
I do wish that when recording and bouncing, sonar wouldn't bother loading all that data from the muted take lanes. It's a bummer to have to delete 20 lanes to keep recording.

Archiving takes or clips might be useful new feature.

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.

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.

dimelives1
 Does anyone here simply record at 44.1 kHz and not bother with dithering at all (in terms of sample rate)?

Dithering is for bit reduction not sample rate changes.

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."

Milton
 I find that it is better NOT to add dither when converting a higher bit depth (24bit) down to 16 bit using Sonar. I find it better to use Ozone's dithering to do this. I wonder if this also holds true in regards to converting down from a higher sample rate (96 etc.) to 44.1 as well?

SONAR has a lot of different dithering options. Cut a signal down to -85dB, slap on some dithering, and normalize it up to hear how different dithering affects the sound. I've done this in mastering seminars to show how dithering can absoiutely improve the sound quality...in listening environments that most people will never experience LOL.

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?"
 

So then what is/are the added benefit(s) of recording at a sample rate any higher than 44.1 if CD is the final intent?
 
(Hope I'm not opening the Pandora's box of studio recording questions...)