Vatican

No every generation of music was about convenience and access as well And a recording was always more convenient than dragging around a symphony orchestra or Led Zeppelin, too.

Maybe I should have asked a different question. Would you track in 44.1, 48, 88.2, or 96 kHz, assuming you're recording material that you expect to care about in a few years? It sounds to me from this thread that you guys would be happiest in 88.2 or 44.1, for music.

Is anyone here sensing that the days of CDs and 44.1kHz are coming to a quiet end? Does it seem with streaming media these days and MP3s, that 44.1kHz is having less of a mandate in the world?

While you guys lost me a long time ago with some of this technical talk, I must also say I've been reading Bob Katz the last few days, and he sounds like he's got things to say in favor of 96kHz, citing LPFs as one of the reasons. I didn't comprehend his exact point, but that was the gist. I think one of you made a similar point.

Excellent, ermghoti II! My research today led me to the similar information, which you've just confirmed, that one of the chief benefits of having higher sampling rates than 48kHz is to take advantage of these sympathetic interactions between instruments. Furthermore, this claim is not accepted by all audiophiles, so there is some dispute there. Yet it's seeming to me that studios are leaning towards 96kHz or higher for their recordings, so that makes me wonder if there isn't something to what they're saying, because usually studios are frugal. Maybe it's just a question of wanting to impress their clients.

I've heard drums are especially suited for 96kHz rather than 48kHz. Would this pertain to analog drum machines as well? How about voices as well, do they benefit much from the increased sample rate?