Quick Poll ||| How Many of You Are On 96KHZ ?

[Severe]

For me, the bottom line is the material. In some cases higher sample rates are more discernable (i.e. a small Jazz group, acoustic based productions, etc) Though in most cases, good ole R&R seems to actually benefit from the smaller rate. 44.1 maintains a "grit", for lack of a better term, to my ears.

I think both higher and lower rates have their uses and it's all based on the source. This has been debated over and over, yet we're all referencing different source material. And even when by chance we're referencing the same material (as in the example in this thread), the opinions are based on only that particular material. So aren't we just agreeing on what sounds best for that example? What's this achieve?

My suggestion is to choose the rate based on the material you're working on. It's just another digital audio variable, no right or wrong.

[Eric Lambert]

My suggestion is to choose the rate based on the material you're working on. It's just another digital audio variable, no right or wrong.

Yup!

[hlj3]

Recently I did a cd with the great engineer, Eric Zobler. He recorded the tracks at 96. Myself and the artist were blown away at how good the drums sounded. Since then i have done all my live drums at 96. Of course it is usually the cook and not the kitchen.