I may well give recording at 96 another crack, since if it becomes dodgy, I can always revert to 48 k, which is what I have been running.
 
I have a pretty powerful machine, and lots of available storage, so it is really a matter of running with it for a while at 96 k and deciding if the extra processing time and increased storage needed is worth doing.
 
I would be doing this with the thinking that even if I cannot hear it generally, if the computer is beefy enough to handle it, maybe certain combinations of things will see slight improvements at the higher rate.
 
Most of my work is midi, with either myself or a single other guitar player, and sometimes a bass player, so no much risk to anything even if there are problems.
 
Bob Bone
 

.

Thanks, Mike. As you know, I record 2-3 nights a week, so since I can only see the problem in the picture (can't hear it), I'm just not going to worry about it. It was interesting that as soon as I touched the loose end of the mic cable the 60 cycle hum increases noticeably. This is a good reason to discourage singers from holding the mic - it looks like.
 
This is the cable...
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/DualCable20?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=audio&utm_term=adwords_labelsCables&device=c&network=g&matchtype=&gclid=CjgKEAjwwuqcBRCSuoivmIPnkwQSJACpqj3k-ktQfKxdgV_t5tte7Ov4ZclbPU5Dt1wY6HutUrCSbPD_BwE

Best, G

.

.

 
 
Geoff  I think plugging in a mic cable and cranking up the gain and leaving the end of the cable unterminated is irrelevant to the discussion.  An unterminated cable with a ton of gain acts like an antenna so it could be picking up anything.  I think it is safe to say that the energy you are seeing up high has nothing to do with music or important harmonics.  A lot of very technical discussion on this matter is not really warranted from now on.  (interesting for sure but perhaps the basis of another thread)
 
What this thread is really about and we need to focus back onto it, is whether 96K session sample rates are a good thing. I think we can deduce that for virtual instruments it is for sure. I am interested in things like Tom's experiments.  The fact he heard a difference in the piano VST at the higher sample rate suggests there are harmonics present that seem to benefit from the higher rate.
 
Tom not all your VST's may prove better at the higher rate either as I have said before.  Ones that are based purely on samples may not show so much of a difference.  I get the feeling that the VST's that are generating sounds themselves that are also high in higher harmonics  (such as 'Prism')  and not based on samples seem to have the more pronounced result working at 96K.
 
As Craig also mentioned before it would be good to turn the thread towards the benefits of working at 96K instead. And to hear from those that do and the reasons they do it. What might be good is to now perhaps do some tests and make some recordings at 96K, mix them down and down sample them to 44.1K and compare those to sessions recorded directly at 44.1K and compare the two.
 
As drums are one of my instruments I might start with them as they tend to be rich in upper harmonics.  The only issue is that is going to be harder to get exactly the same performances happening for both sessions but at least with drums and myself for example I could lay down grooves at the same tempos  (click)  and play them very closely the same.  I can be very consistent on that instrument.  It should be possible to hear any differences if they are present, even under those conditions.

Hi! I'm totally new to this forum, but I've been for almost 32 years in the recording industry. I'd love to share with you some of the ideas other engineers, physics scientists and audiophiles have been discussing for over ten years about hi-def audio. 
 
Let's go to the very basic thing: the only way to have a great recording is recording it well. So... mikes, venue, artists, placing of people, instruments and equipment are important. The recording method and the type of system is paramount at this stage. It's not the same if you're using a 96ch. SSL Board with all the bells and whistles and dumping the recording to a 1" tape than using the same analogue board signals into a ProTools HD rig at 192/24. Here comes the first step: if I have a tape for, let's say, summed tracks for drums on a two-track, I can play with that all I want, til I go to the whole mix. In fact, what we do is mixing in groups to be able to use all the capabilities and maximum fidelity on tape. Teh dynamic range of tape is hard-limited by the medium, so, translated to digital, it can go from 19-20Hz to 22kHz depending on a dozen of factors (azimuth alignment, demagnetization, head wear, and so on).
 
If I capture the performance in ProTools HD 192/24 I still have all the analogue characteristics of the hardware I used (the board itself and all the other processors we love... preamps, outboard EQ's, etc.). But... I have ALL the tracks, up to 96, let's say, on their own and at a very high resolution. The huge difference here is this: I can play with these tracks almost fearlessly. I can compress, EQ, gate, limit, push, colour... whatever I want -obviously, within the limits of musical perfection, without destroying the timbre, tonality, and, most importantly, dynamic range. Most microphones, even the most sophisticated hand-made German ones have serious physical limitations, as our own hearing. I love my U87AI and it "just" goes from 20Hz to 20kHz!!!! So... I'm recording at 192kHz/24bit resolution, but ALL I have to work with is 20 to 20K. If I were recording direct to 44.1/16 I'd be seriously limited in "tweaking" the tracks, since ANY change would alter or terminally destroy its contents. This is due to the Nyquist frequency which has been explained before. Now, I have three times (in 192) or twice (in 96) the leeway to work that on a 44.1 or 48 track.
 
So this is provenance 1: the recording session. I do it in the digital domain in high resolution. A must if I want my product to be Hi Def.
 
Then, provenance 2: My finished mix, let's say in 96/24, will go to the mastering phase. Here, more damage (tweaking... Oh, God! what we do is making things sound better through destroying them?... hell, no!) to the original signal will be done. The practice today is to compress things to absurdity (0dB anyone?), so there's no real silence where silence should be, no mellow or really subtle passages... everything is slammed to the red -without clipping! If the mastering house knows they're going HD, they should keep things where they are... smooth sine forms would show, instead of bricks. And... that's it for provenance. You can still have your 96/24 stereo mix in that sacred realm.
 
Now, we have to go public: distribution is where things get lazy. Let's bump the whole master to -2 and downgrade it to 44.1/16 for distribution. Most of the love that went into the process is turned into a red rage of "normalisation" or whatever name they use for the process... the brights are ultrabright and the shadows are ultrashadowy! 
 
If we stop at stage two of provenance, we could listen to music for much longer and without fatigue. This may not be scientific at all, but it's a fact. There's less fatigue when listening to HD music than to CD-standard music. 
 
We don't understand the hearing process as we do with sight. We don't have golden ears (maybe there are some folks who do, but they are pretty scance. With age, we lose our ability to hear some frequencies. We're "blind" to them.
 
So... what makes HD music better than standard Redbook CD-quality? The depth of the recorded material. Sometimes you can "feel" the silence. The lights are not hot and the shadows are not that dark, so it's like having a picture with detail in both shadows (lower frequencies down to 30Hz, which you feel) and light (like the details of a white cloud hit by the sun, where 20kHz is the limit for our ears to listen to). It's smoother.
 
Is all this scientifically based? Yes, absolutely. Can we hear the difference from a very good 44.1/16 to a 96/24 recording? It can't be demonstrated yet. If you work in a studio environment yes, you would "feel" much better and relaxed working with HD tracks (oh... files!). 
 
Since the topic's been going on for ages... well... it can go on forever until the day science can measure objectively our hearing perception and make it universal.
 
 

I can agree with that, well put.
 
It would be nice to be able to quantify it, that is for sure.
But it could be a subjective thing like;
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
"sound quality is in the perception of the hearer"
 
It could simply be that HD recordings are more linear and translates to a more smoother quality.
Bit length multiplied by no of times sampled per second equals how linear it is.
 
 
 

I can't agree with that. Hi Def means nothing. Heck my on board sound chip calls itself Hi def. When you increase the sample rate you do not increase the resolution but only the bandwidth. 
 
As far as being able to process a higher sample rate audio file and not impact its dynamic range while using a compressor is absurd.  

One of the most interesting aspects of the Meyer-Moran experiments was that while people couldn't tell the difference between DSD, 4/96, and 44.1/16, there was pretty much universal agreement that the "hi-def" releases sounded better compared to the CD releases of the same material. After looking into the matter, they came to the conclusion that the hi-def releases were prepared with greater care. In other words, the CD releases could have sounded much better than they did. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
 
Part of the reason for controversy surrounding hi-def (i.e., sample rates and resolution in excess of 44.1/16) is that there's a lot of snake oil in the audio industry. I already posted a link to the shootout for USB cables passing audio. I really find it hard to believe that a gazillion dollar-a-foot USB cable is going to make my audio sound better, I don't believe running a green Sharpie around the edge of a CD will improve the sound, I don't need to pay $500 for knobs that weigh a lot to "dampen amplifier vibrations," etc. etc. 
 
I feel many of our "problems" stem from a lack of care regarding music recording, mixing, and mastering. It is possible to make 44.1/16-bit CDs that sound breathtaking, yet with rare exceptions there doesn't seem to be a "relentless pursuit of excellence" with respect to sound quality. This is why I was so excited to find that a simple sample rate increase could make an audible improvement in the sound of some virtual instruments and plug-ins. It's not a total solution, but it's part of the solution.
 
I remain unconvinced at present that we need 96/24 or 192/24 playback, but that's only because I simply haven't done enough recording at higher rates in genres other than classical. I look forward to finding out more and being able to come to a conclusion.