Usually the more resolution you grab the better the quality. But some noticed that better converters will sound better at 44khz than cheap converter at 96khz.. That said I guess the better converter will also sound better at 96khz.,

Another aspect is at what rate the processing will be done. Many argued that mixing at 96khz will give better results because the plugins will sound better.
But now a day, many DAWs and plugins have oversampling fonctions which let believe they should sound the same.
I personnally recording, mix and master at 96khz

So, for Budget Interface, it's better stick on 96khz recording format?

In fact, really need 96 (input) for 44.1 (final output) ?

You do what ever pleases you, really.. Many recordist record at 24/44.1 and are very happy.
I made my own decision a while back by comparing the results. For me and with the equipement and DAW I use, I keep everything at 96khz up until I export the song ready for CD at 16/44 or video at 16/48 because I hear the difference and it sounds better to me.
I know it takes more computer ressources and that I cut in half my adat port count but for me the sound quality is my priority.

pcrecord, post: 445714, member: 46460 wrote: You do what ever pleases you, really.. Many recordist record at 24/44.1 and are very happy.
I made my own decision a while back by comparing the results. For me and with the equipement and DAW I use, I keep everything at 96khz up until I export the song ready for CD at 16/44 or video at 16/48 because I hear the difference and it sounds better to me.
I know it takes more computer ressources and that I cut in half my adat port count but for me the sound quality is my priority.

Thanks, man! I shall give it a shot

This is always an interesting read.
The Optimal Sample Rate for Quality Audio By Dan Lavry,
Lavry Engineering Inc.
May 3, 2012

http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf

I was just going to say, audiokid has written quite a lot about this on this forum. The people here have already explained it all very well, search SRC etc.

If you want the short answer, I've had someone with good ears listen to a session in PT that's 24/44.1 and 24/96. He didn't know which was which...I did.

It may have been the plug-ins (if you search you'll understand) but he was able to pick the 24/96 right away. I also could hear it, in certain parts of the track. But I knew which was which, so that's not really a fair test.

I didn't go any higher, bc my setup wouldn't handle it. So, IN SESSION, I have at least one legit opinion that 24/96 is better. Plus the info on here about how plug-ins can cause aliasing/artifacting below the NSF.

However, when a project is bounced to a final track, to fit on a CD, it must be 16/44.1....so when you bounce it down, it will down sample, which is a topic of discussion/debate.

So, in session, 24/96 sounds better (noticeably) than 16/44.1. But, your final version won't be bounced that high. So, I guess, do some reading on SRC here (sample rate conversion) and some testing and see what you process you prefer. After all my reading etc, I'm doing 24/48 atm. (because my track count is low at 24/96).

There isn't really a "proper" way....just educate yourself, play around with your setup, listen, listen, listen, and decide what you want to do.

I learned recently that the bit depth is more important than the sample rate, if that helps you. E.g. 24/44.1 is better than 16/44.1. And maybe the guys who understand better can explain if there is any problem bouncing down from 24/44.1 to 16/44.1 I actually never thought about it till just now.