noynekker

Bub



I use 96kHz all the time on my Fast Track Ultra. Reason is, if you track with Input Echo on so you can hear the effects real time, there is less latency the higher your Sample Rate. I found that setting my Fast Track Ultra to 88.1kHz causes problems with the driver, so I stopped using it. Scott is right, I have read a lot about people liking 88.1kHz because of how well it converts to CD format.

Good luck.

Bub.

Yes, I've noticed this, but don't understand the mathematics as to why latency is improved at higher sample rates.
I guess if your computer is up to the task, the higher sample rate seems best, regardless whether you will hear the difference or not.
 
 

thanks slartabartfast, I had to read this a number of times to get it, and it's a good explanation you've given here,
I think . . . wait, let me read it again. Think I spend too much time in the artist part of my brain, let me switch to my math part.
The "bucket of samples" analogy is helpful, thanks again.
oops, now you've deleted part of it in your edit ?

slartabartfast

project owner is currently looking at this as a vanity project

In that case there is no doubt you should use 24/192. 192 kHz is all about vanity, and anyone who doesn't know what he wants will certainly be easily convinced that anything less is inferior. No sense wasting your time at anything rational when the next engineer he sees will tell him that you provided a substandard sampling rate to explain why he can't make the client happy either.

I got a VM from the other engineer last night - use 96 if you can. Slartabartfast makes a good point. Why invest in an argument with a pro using Pro Tools HD and the equipment to match? I can't win.
 
I am going to record acoustic guitar tracks over the weekend at 48, 88.2 and 96 to evaluate how my interfaces behave.
 
I am beginning to realize, it is really all about my setup, not someone elses and I need to put in the homework getting to know my rig.
 
Ardjunc