dimelives1
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...)

One needs to differentiate between recording (and/or playback) and processing.
 
For recording/playback, higher sample rates might allow for lower latency if one's computer is up to the task.
 
But for processing, it is most definitely beneficial to do certain types of operations at higher rates. In a perfect world, all plugins that benefited from this would upsample internally where desirable, and many do indeed do exactly this.
 
But there are some synths and FX that some people use that really should upsample internally but don't. So if one of those plugs is being used, running Sonar at higher sampling rates can provide real benefits.

...and these benefits are preserved even when playing back at 44.1 kHz.

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.
 
@

I messed around with this a few weeks back after reading something here, and with an amp sim, can't remember which one, maybe TH2 or Studio Devil, or Revalver, or one of the others, and I could definitely hear the difference from 96 to 44.1, it sounded better, no doubt in my mind, I usually do 24/44.1 and when I tried 96 I was somewhat perplexed, I started to think I would have to restart my projects with 96 instead of 44.1, and then after more messing around I began to notice very faint 'crackling' using 96, I usually have my buffers set to 128, I was setting them to 64 while messing around with 96Khz, can't remember if I tried to bump the buffers up a bit to see if the 'crackles' went away or not, but I was also reading some stuff that said if you were using synths/instruments that had sample rates of 44.1 and you were running at 96Khz, there would be more on the fly converting going on etc etc, So I just decided to go back to 24/44.1 and be happy with that, have been until now.
 
A couple of questions
1. Why is it that you use a higher sample rate, it's more taxing on your machine etc, how come you can use lower buffers, get lower latency ? I ould have naturally assumed it went the other way.
 
2. I would have thought my machine would have been beefy enough to do 96Khz ? (maybe it would have without the crackles if I upped the buffers a bit)
 
3. drewfx1, are you Drew from FXpansion ?

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. 

I use 44.1k simply because years ago I tried using 88.2 and 96 and I was unable to reconcile the problems I had with certain softsynths/samplers.  some of them do not (or maybe did not) like the higher sampling rate for the project, so I stuck with 44.1 which all of them were happy with.
 
I never have looked back because it was so much trouble trying to convert everything back to 44.1 after having problems with higher rates on the samplers which weren't added until later in the project.

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...

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.  

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.

John

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.

terminology