It's a debate. People have varying opinions. One opinion is that getting something recorded at a higher quality allows you to process more accurate information as you mix, and so on and that school likes to record at high sampling rates and keep it there until the last minute, and then very carefully do conversions for cd product. another school of thought says just record at 44.1 because it's going to be there in the end anyway. I think the balance has tipped in favor of the former model (recording at higher resolutions and bit depths). that's what I do. and in the commercial recording studios, people do that mostly (or record on analog and then dub to really high res protools for mix down) just a note, too, on the difference between sample rate and bit depth - very basically, sample rate determines the highest frequency you can record (half of the sample rate) and bit depth determines how much dynamic range (loud/soft) you can record. some people believe that bit depth is WAY more important, and don't mind recording at 44.1 as long as the bit depth is high (like 24 bit). In theory this holds because half of 44.1 is 22khz and that's higher than we can hear anyway. contrary to some people's beliefs (like mine long ago) higher sampling rates don't add any low end richness, just high end accuracy. I think it's wise to record at high sampling rates and bit depths. -- Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "millward" <millward(a)ms.umanitoba.ca> To: <linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:54 PM Subject: [linux-audio-user] sample rate question I was wondering, since the CD sample rate is 44100, is there any advantage to recording at a higher sample rate? My sound card, an Audiophile 24/96, allows much higher sample rates and my hard drive is big enough to store the resulting files, I think, but what purpose would it serve when in the end, an audio CD is only good for 44100 ? I'd have to convert down just to be able to burn the final product onto CD anyway. There must be some advantage to recording at a sample rate above 44100. Could someone tell me what it is?

On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:33:42PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: s/mute/moot/ , interesting freudian slip maybe :)

It's a debate. People have varying opinions. One opinion is that getting something recorded at a higher quality allows you to process more accurate information as you mix, and so on and that school likes to record at high sampling rates and keep it there until the last minute, and then very carefully do conversions for cd product. another school of thought says just record at 44.1 because it's going to be there in the end anyway. I think the balance has tipped in favor of the former model (recording at higher resolutions and bit depths). that's what I do. and in the commercial recording studios, people do that mostly (or record on analog and then dub to really high res protools for mix down)

First, do a blind "taste test" of your material at 96k, then 44.1. If you can pick the 96k file every time without knowing before hand which it is, then you should record everything at 96k. CD's are 44.1, yes, but your music will live longer than CD's. If you can't pick the 96k file, then record at 44.1 for efficiency, and to save space.