Actually it can matter, not really in the audible frequencies that you capture, but in processing the end result. The filters are placed outside of the audible range and therefore effect the frequencies that are in the audible range less. A well designed 44.1 A/D converter can sound excellent but that is usually not the end of it. What you do to it afterwards is where using a higher sampling frequency is benifitial. All of my processing is done at 96khz regardless of the initial sampling freq. The result to me, is a much nicer high end with noticeably less filter ripple in the audible range. So if you have the ability to capture at a higher sampling rate and the ME can process at this rate, IMO the end result will sound better.

It makes a huge difference if you record INTO your DAW at 96KHz (or 88.2). Put up room mics and a drum set. Experiment between 96/88.2 and 48/44.1...I guarantee you'll hear a difference in the reverb tail/room sound.

There's just way more detail when the waveform gets "small".

What if the ME gets it in his hands in 16/44 format? Would it make much difference then? I'm not so sure that he'll work with it in 24/96. The ME said I could mix it down to 24/48-96 and bring it to him on as data files on CDR, but I'm thinking he'll likely knock it down to 16/44 before he does anything else.

Would there still be any benefit if I recorded it at 24/96 vs 24/48 and then I mixed it down and dithered it to 16/44, then he masted it? Or in other words would there only be a difference if the ME worked with it in 96?

Bodhi wrote: What if the ME gets it in his hands in 16/44 format? Would it make much difference then?

Absolutely. All the processing you will do before converting it down to 16/44.1 will benefit from the increased resolution.

but I'm thinking he'll likely knock it down to 16/44 before he does anything else.

If this is true, time to go looking for a new ME. There's lots of good ones who hang out here...
I can't speak for everyone, but I convert the files down to 16/44.1 LAST, not before.

Yeah, I need to grill him on his process, not certain he'll knock it down first, just assuming the worst case scenario. With many of the ME's I've checked out, it seemed like they wanted it to come in 16/44. I was telling them that I'd prefer to get it in their hands at 24/48-96 and let them convert it, but they reacted like it wasn't necessary. I haven't decided on a ME yet, I'm just slightly leaning...

Anybody recommend a good ME in the Austin/Central TX area?

So for the best final product recording in 24/96, mixing in 24/96, and getting it to the ME in 24/96 would yield a noticeably better commercial result, no doubt? Makes sense, but if no ME wants it to arrive in 24/96 I'm SOL. If that's the case would it be a waste of time to do 96KHz only to knock it down myself.

Depends on how you knock it down. But in general, the longer you keep it up, the better (as my girlfriend says).

I would keep it at 96k or 88.2k if you have the equipment. If your ME can't process at this sample rate, ask how he's going to knock it down. If you need to, you can do an D/A/D and give it to him at 24/44.1k .

Excellent, these are all questions I need to ask 'em.

I know he accepts 24bit DAT, and he said it was cool if I mix it down into 24/48-96 and onto data files. Then send it to him ahead of time to load it up. But how he does it and what bit/sr he works with I have no idea. Guess that is the pertinent question.

Did a little test, and you're right. Doing it 24/96 all the way. Since I'm looking to make the best end product possible it makes no sense to compromise.

Hopefully finding a ME that won't knock it down until the very end won't prove impossible.

mixandmaster wrote: There's lots of good ones who hang out here...
I can't speak for everyone, but I convert the files down to 16/44.1 LAST, not before.

And we'll all fight to the death for your business! :?