A while back i remember whining about a "character" that i couldnt seem to get in my projects, describng them as "dull, and recently learned that the detail i was longing for is the brightness found in the upper register when working with an increased sample rate, most prominent for me on acoustic guitar and piano. Ive learned that that brightness is what ive been dying for, BUT ive also learned that my dual core cant accomodate larger rates and depths on my bigger projects. Making the switch to more processing power isnt gonna be in the cards for me for some time. But, i have been budgeting for converters for some time now (which i already needed anyways), and may be able to grab a UA apollo or maybe something from lynx or ssl soon. Ive been told that killer converters at 44.1 will blow the doors off of a minimal setup at larger Khz, as far as getting me the sound i need, and im wondering if anyone can vouch for that?
     Also this would be my first time pursuing converters outside of the stock circuits in my interface, im clueless as far as what part of the signal path i would put it in and im curious would i be able to run soft synth tracks through it like with a channel strip? 

" Ive been told that killer converters at 44.1 will blow the doors off of a minimal setup at larger Khz" yeah its not just the converters, its the anti aliasing filters as well, but you get wat you pay for, pay for sub par, you get sub par

thanks for response. not familiar with anti aliasing. school me?

aliasing is a distortion in the signal caused by the highest frequency of the signal being more than half the sample rate i.e if you are recording a signal whos highest frequency component is say 27 khz and you have a sampling rate of 44.1 khz, the signal will become misrepresented, for 27 khz, you would need a sampling rate of at least 54khz, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/w...annon_sampling_theorem think of it like a wagon wheel being spun round, and the spokes start to look like they are going backward

Great converters will sound good at any sample-rate.
Mediocre converters may sound better at higher sample-rates.

Aside from converters, your mics have a HUGE effect on the captured results.
If you go with world-class converters, make sure you have front-end (mics/pre-amps) that are commensurate.
Otherwise, you won't reap the full benefits of said converters.

One other large advantage to world-class converters (and front-end) is the low noise-floor.
Upon listening to a single track, you may not hear a difference between a noise-floor of -107dB vs. -117dB.
But multiply that noise-floor across 24-48 tracks of audio... and the difference is significant.
Using higher end converters is like removing a veil of noise. 

Another facet is the recording environment (physical space).
Mic'ing with a little more distance can really help some instruments (piano, acoustic guitar, cymbals, etc).

All of this said, I think you reach a point where other factors are more important than all of the above.
If you've got a great song and a great mix, nobody is going to care what sample-rate you used.
No one is going to buy (or not buy) your record based on the sample-rate.
If the song is mediocre, recording it with the ultimate in fidelity will still result in a mediocre song. 

  how can you have $2k for an apollo but not be able to afford a better computer? You can build a beast for $1200 and $600 for a decent condenser mic that will give you more sonic detail than you ever wanted for a piano. Then last $200 on plugins. Records with hyped high end aren't the result of converters. Also the noise floor of converters is way below that of your preamp and even the space in which you record. Nudging your mic one inch will have more impact on sonics. Maybe if you find an environment completely quiet you will hear your ears ringing before noticing converter noise.  I think you answer your own question before asking it and that initial insight is correct.  

If the song is mediocre, recording it with the ultimate in fidelity will still result in a mediocre song

 
After much testing I have verfied this to be 100% true. ;-)
 
Regards,

I've used 3 interfaces, 2 aardvark Q10s, Roland FA66, and Fireface 800 and I've never noticed a difference between the converters nor sample rate. At least nothing that improved the quality of the overall song. But to be honest I've never really compared the three in A/B testing. Perhaps these are mediocre interfaces and a high end one would be an obvious improvement.

Converters are one of the lesser things to pay money for improvement. In my opinion, they come after great techniques/engineering, great mics, great techniques with those great mics, then great pre's, then great converters. That's about the order I think about it in. I own a MOTU 24 I/O Core, which is a mediocre A/D converter. It's top sampling rate is 96Khz, and I've been told that is the only frequency you should use it for, as the others are not optimal for the other electronics in the unit.

However, I have modded the MOTU. It now has better OP-AMPS throughout, and I've added a Black Lion Audio external clock. Both mods made a discernible difference. The OP-AMP mods made the audio a bit more lively and 3-dimensional, while the clock added clarity, especially for transients. To reprise my sequence of priorities above, this was an improvement worth going for. 

Aardvark has a new 192Khz 32-channel A/D, which looks like it may be sweet. However, as many experts will tell you, the highest sampling rate is not always the best. The best one is the one the A/D converter is designed around. For some manufacturers, 192Khz is merely a marketing decision. Read reviews and dig a bit into the modding markets. Het familiar with the technologies and how they help. Go to a studio that has multiple units and listen for yourself. You may also order A/D converters from online retailers with great return policies and audition them in your own home. Return the losers. Rent. Don't believe the hype. 

Above all else, keep this in mind: Converters shouldn't give you a "sound". They're to be as transparent as humanly and technically possible. Your pre's, mics, artists' tone, and engineering skills give you tone, not the converters. 

Converters are one of the last places to look to upgrade.  Not that they ain't important, but in the great chain of sound I want them to faithfully reproduce what they are fed not "add" anything.  And I think it was Moto a few years ago that advertised they used the same converter chips that Apogge did, which was kinda silly since there were (are) only a few of these chip makers.  It is true that the other analog components that lead in and out of converters make a difference and that is what you pay for in higher cost converters, but in my opinion that money is better spent before (or after) the converters.
Most modern converters do a good job - even the low end.

A good rule of thumb is the closer to the source, the better your money is spent.  Song, performance, instruments, room, mic, preamp are all more important.  Even a low end integrated interface will do a good job on the preamp/converter aspect, as long as you don't stress the cheaper components much, ie. except 55 + dB preamp to capture a whispery voice or instrument without adding to the noise floor, or expect the same to capture dramatic volume change without crapping out.  High quality tools make an engineer's life easier and safer, besides whatever "sound' they add during capture.  And if you overdrive a converter, the digital hash it produces is on/off, obvious and nothing like the progression good analog provides going from saturation to distorition.  So I would prefer to spend money going into a converter getting whatever sound I need before.

You don't say what interface you currently have that gives you the cloudy sound.  I can say that I noticed a difference when I upgraded from a Presonus FirePod, one of the earliest 8 channel cheap integrated interfaces.  When I stepped up to a TC Konnekt I noticed a better, clearer high end.  Not night and day, as people often describe it, and in some ways the pod delivered a more "analog", rounded sound that worked better on some music.  I don't know whether this was because of the preamps in it or the converters in the pod, but it was there.  Maybe a new, even cheap interface would help if you are using an older converter?

But I wouldn't be too quick to spend $2000 on a lynx if I was recording vocals through a '57.  A mic would be a better place to put that money.  And before I'd chuck the interface I'd be tempted to get a better preamp.  And  montiors.  And room treatment.  Better recording (and techniques) makes mixing soo much easier, since you are starting w/ a more finished sound.

As others have said, higher rates might help and your interface might sound better at a higher rates.  But most of that controversy is old - most companies have figured out how to make decent filters for conversion.  Some softsynths (and effects) might sound better at 96, but most effects these days use upsampling anyway.  But try some experiments and see for yourself if upping the sample rate helps.  If so, then the money should go to a new computer.

Unless you have an older converter or one designed for gaming, you'll probably want to put the money toward the front end.

@