I don't engage in this lightly....but....
regebro, this is not per se a flame against you, but, I have read too many posts where you makes these unfounded, not thought all the way through claims about higher resolution audio. It would seem that you are definately not of the same thinking of the likes of Bob Katz, Bernie Grundman, or Bob Ludwig, possibly the three biggest mastering engineers in the world. You can think different then they, but, you are going to have a hard sell buddy!
I don't just talk out my ass about this stuff. I research, listen, and experiment. If you would like to compare some audio, you know where to find mine. I haven't heard yet any of yours.....
The reason I always recommend recording and mixing to the highest sampling rate (well, at least up to 96KHz right now....) and the highest bit resolution is because of the increase digital data available for processing. THE PROCESSING SOUNDS BETTER BECAUSE THERE IS MORE INFORMATION FOR IT TO DO IT'S JOB!!! Duh eh? That 10% more samples PER SECOND means that much more detailed DSP can be applied to the audio. Whether it is going to be sampled back down to something is regardless of the fact. That just means that the extra bit of high frequency response is lost, and that a hair of resolution is lost. Splashing in the high end IS going to happen of course, but no worse then the splashing that is going to happen by recording at 44.1 anyway.
Think about it for a second. You record at 48KHz, apply DSP, then resample back to 44.1. Or, you record at 44.1, apply DSP THAT IS LESS POWERFULL AND WITH LESS INFORMATION AVAILABLE. Hmmmmmmmmm..... I am willing to bet that the software algorithms for resampling are much better then the sample clock crystals in the sound cards many of you are using! I am willing to bet that the software algorithms are better then most of the A/D/A converters many of you are using. It would only make sense to record at the highest resolution possible so that the dsp can work better! Sort of giving yourself an extra edge! Duh eh? Not only does that make sense, but is a supported practice by a overwhelming majority of professionals in the audio mastering profession. Most every mixing engineer I have talked to will claim the same thing!
I am mostly fed up with the bogus information people feed on this topic, when much better minds then any of us have already did the tests, and did the math, and did the blind comparisons.
KEEP YOUR AUDIO AT THE HIGHEST SAMPLING RATE AND BIT DEPTH AS YOU CAN FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN!!! In the end, the audio will have more appearent depth and a far more detailed sound then doing otherwise.
Once again, I link to
http://www.digido.com . Bob Katz is a world renowned mastering engineer with a long and storied background in the highest end audio recordings in the world. If it is good enough for him, it is more then good enough for me. If HIS logic don't make sense to YOU, then YOU are not thinking logically. Your less then well thought through ideas does not mean his are flawed, and certainly, many of the top mixing engineers in the world who have an eye towards keeping the most natural sound on their mixes trust those mixes to Bob Katz, and supply him with the type of digital resolution he recommends. If ol' Bob felt, after many dealings in extensive listening tests, double blind even, that 16 bit 44.1KHz sampling rate audio was adequate, he would not have written all those articles suggesting otherwise. Professionals don't argue his points, and I suppose none of us should either. Or course, you are welcomed to by all means.
Sample rate conversion and dithering are not bad things! What negligable artifacts they may produce in the sound is more then made up in the increased DSP power you have with higher resolution digital audio. There is "No debate" with that with anybody that has a name in audio.
Paul Ertel. I have expounded upon this subject many times on this BBS. Do a search and you will find many posts where I have listed details about this. Nobody has yet successfully disputed this, and in fact, most of the professional engineers that post on this site, and other BBS's that I sometimes post on have agreed with this.
http://www.digido.com is a must read on this subject. Read over there until it starts making sense. It doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to understand it. Why many still dispute it, I don't know.....
Good luck.
Sorry to name names, or to come across harsh to some people on here who I would normally support just about anything they say. But this issue just doesn't make sense the way it is presented by many on here. I will toot the horn of Bob Katz any day of the week when it comes to digital audio and the best way to deal with it. His information only supported what I was hearing before I understood what the problems with lower resolution audio was. His suggestions on how to combat some of the downsides of digital audio have served me quite well so far, and many others. If it don't server you well, I would tend to suspect something in your listening environment, or possibly, and I hate to say it, your hearing.
There! My rant is over....
Ed
. Converting sample rates that are not exact multiples is a nasty thing to do to the audio... especially when the sample rates are fairly close to one another.
