Should I be recording in 24/96?

[apl]

I'm seriously going bananas over...

Record at 24 bit for the extra headroom. Sample at the final product's frequency which is 44.1 kHz for CD. Anything else is wasted disk space.

But I'm not a pro...

 

[tenkas]

Well, it seems that Rado has faded again (or just forgotten or just misteriously didn't have time to reply... who knows what a knowledgeable man like him could be up to!)

I know bluebear may have already answered this question, but I would like his opinion on the subject, and maybe we could try putting a sticky thread, so people know what is the real thing going on between 44.1 and 96 and etc...

Thx everyone

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Well, it seems that Rado has faded again

Small loss... the guy was clueless...

I know bluebear may have already answered this question, but I would like his opinion on the subject, and maybe we could try putting a sticky thread, so people know what is the real thing going on between 44.1 and 96 and etc...

The real deal is that if someone can't get a good sound at lower wordsizes and sampling rates, then the higher res isn't going to help them at all, they need to be looking at their recording skills!

The other thing is that people need to try it for themselves -- if they can hear a difference at 96 and have the CPU/storage capacity/gear to handle hi-res effectively, then they should do it and see if it makes difference to their ears!

Personally, I record 24-bit and either 48K or 44.1K depending on the project (if a project started outside my studio it often comes in at 44.1KHz)..... before I went to the Sony console, I would mix-down from analog to 24/88.2, but now that the mixing path is completely digital, the tracking sampling rate has to be maintained straight through to the mixdown machine. I'm not hearing ANY difference mixing at the lower sampling rate........

 

[Farview]

This might put Rado's posts into perspective.
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1420923#post1420923