Any Point in Recording @ 48K if ending up on CD?

[little_bloke]

Hi all,

I'm soon to be in the position of having a studio equipped with a digi 002. Now I don't want to get involved in the 96k vs. 48k debate, it is not an issue for me as I will need to record at least 13 tracks at once anyways so I'm stuck with 48k or 44.1k.

I've been having many discussions with my friends on this issue and I would just like some simple advice.

I'd Always imagined that it would make sense to record at the highest possible 'Fidelity' (48k) and maintain the entire engineering process at that level until final mix down, for some reason it feels to me as if that would in some way result in a slightly Higher quality finished product.

On the other hand I understand that stepping down from 48k to 44.1k is not that simple a process.

Is it therefore the case that 48 actually causes more hassle than it is worth and provides no benefit whatsoever if the finished audio will most of the time end up on CD

The Spec of the PC follows, if anyone knows of any issues with this MB or could recommend better I would appreciate the comments.

Ta!

LB

Studio PC Spec

MB - ASUS P4C800 Deluxe (for the Fire-wire)
CPU - P4 2.8Ghz
MEM - Corsair TWINX1024-3200C2 DDR400 (2 X 512 Matched Pair Memory Modules)
HDD - 2 x Western Digital Caviar Special Edition (SE) 80 GB
MON - Ilyama 19" Vision Master Pro 454
GPU - ATI Radeon 8500
OS - Microsoft Windows XP Pro With SP 1a (OEM)

[Jburn34]

It's probably better to just record in 44.1. That way you reduce the math needed and the difference between the 2 isn't that big of a deal. 16 bit to 24 bit is a much more noticeable difference.

One of the top mastering engineers in Nashvilled aggreed that it's also better go record at 88.2 instead of 96k when it's eventually going to 44.1, because the math is cleaner.

Jeremy

[little_bloke]

Ta,

Thanks for the info

[where02190]

Unless there's video plans, stick with 44.1 less mathematics involved in the end product.