bitflipper

So at the end of the day, you are right: the higher sampling rate will indeed capture a broader bandwidth and thus preserve the original waveform better. However, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

And that is why most classical recordings are done at 96kHz, right?

I suspect most classical recordings are done at 96K because that's how they've always been done, starting back in the days when ADCs did not employ oversampling. The earliest digital recordings were classical pieces, and although some of them were pretty good, far more were not. Digital audio got a bad reputation back then as a result.

I know you're a proponent of high sample rates, A1. I am not here to tell you not to do it. In fact, your interface might do 96k better than 44.1. But that's a quirk of the interface, not any intrinsic superiority of the faster rate.

Bitflipper/John,

Is it possible that some people are confused because they see the waveforms displayed in their DAW that look like a staircase and think that is what the audio "looks" like?  Without understanding that analog audio is filtered and is NOT a staircase.  I can see where if they think the audio is a staircase that more stairs could lead to a more accurate representation.  I don't think some people understand that the filtering removes the stair steps because those discrete steps (square waves) would be representative of frequencies higher than the Nyquist Frequency.  I think you guys would do a better job than I can at explaining it.  Perhaps if you guys could explain that it might help.  But then again - maybe not.

Thanks for trying to stop the spread of misinformation. 

Don

Great response Bit, you and the others on this forum are truly a wealth of knowledge.

After reading through (most) of the posts in this thread I still find no compelling reason NOT to record at 24/96. It doesn't slow down my computer and I have lots of disk space. And it sounds fantastic as well. Plus I just like saying 24/96...

Is it possible that some people are confused because they see the waveforms displayed in their DAW that look like a staircase and think that is what the audio "looks" like?

That is exactly the problem, and the source of the bogus pixel analogy that won't die.

I'll bet they also think that an oscilloscope will show that same staircase if they look at the analog output.  

A1MixMan


Great response Bit, you and the others on this forum are truly a wealth of knowledge.

After reading through (most) of the posts in this thread I still find no compelling reason NOT to record at 24/96. It doesn't slow down my computer and I have lots of disk space. And it sounds fantastic as well.

+1

... and I'd like to add that at that rate I see a significant drop in latency. Being a guitar player, that fact alone is priceless to me. If anyone can get their Fast Track Ultra down to 4 ~ 5ms @ 48/44.1/24 on an i5 w/4Gb RAM please let me know.

I just got a Sweetwater catalog today and these puppies are on sale ...

Focal SM9 Studio Monitor
Frequency Range 3-way Mode : 30Hz-40kHz (+/- 3dB)

Thanks,

Bub.

I agree that one can use what ever sample rate they want. But don't think that a higher rate is going to sound better then a lower one so long as the rate is enough to encompass the needed bandwidth. If it is going onto a CD then I simply don't see any point.

One reason people use a 96 kHz sample rate is because they can.

Latency is a valid reason to up the sample rate.

Don you could be on to something. 

infinite time signals

Are we talking about the entire electromagnetic spectrum? My requirements are a great deal less ambitious.