Re: OT: 24Bit/96Khz vs 16Bit/ 44.1Khz recording

[Matthias Grob <matilists@gmail.com>]

On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:17, Rick Walker wrote:

Does a recording at 96-24 downsampled to 44-16
sound better than a recording sampled only at 44-16, initially.

And if so,  what's the logic?

since you never record at optimum level and filtering and compression can bring up noise during mixing, so it makes a lot of sense to do this whole process in 24bit and only go to 16bit in the end.

the 96k (or rather 88.2k since you want to end up in 44.1 and resampling brings another problem) is a bit harder to understand: remember the strange interferences that can create pretty low tones when two picolos play together?

imagine that this also happens between the non audible overtones of two real instruments. so if the microphones do reach those frequencies and you mix them after recording, it can make a difference. I do not have the experience to say how easy they are audible. I am pretty sure they are not audible when the signal comes from ordinary mics and guitar processors.

if you only record to two tracks, then treat them and then convert to 44.1 in the end, I do not see why 88.2 would bring anything