@mpower88 said:

[...]. Even if the tracked material was 44.1, processed in 96, and dithered down [...]

Just to avoid any confusion: Dithering has nothing to do with sample rate conversion. It is applied when changing the bit-depth of a digital audio stream (or - according to the text-book - whenever you change the volume of a digital audio signal).

Kind regards,

I believe that if you are going to present the material for listening at 96kHz, then that's what you should mix at. However, if you aren't, it is better to mix at the sample rate that the end product is due to be played at.

DG

Right you are Dietz, my bad I meant sampled down.

But since you're here ;) haha, any *other* comments??

DG, the vast majority of people using this format daily in a professional sense would disagree with you. See my above post. But you're free to your opinion, I'm just saying, for some people, it's worth it. I personally would use it.

@mpower88 said:

DG, the vast majority of people using this format daily in a professional sense would disagree with you. See my above post. But you're free to your opinion, I'm just saying, for some people, it's worth it. I personally would use it.

Of course they disagree, becuase otherwise they wouldn't be using it. However, they are a tiny minority of the people using DAWs, so the majority seem to agree with me. [;)]

However, jsut to expand upon my thinking, the reason I say it's not worth it is because once you down sample you can never be sure exactly what will transfer. By working at 44.1 or 48, you already know exactly what you're getting., there is no mystery. I've also spoken to many engineers about this very thing, and although some agree with you, others agree with me. In fact a couple of them said that they have even made mistakes by trusting that what they hear at 96 is going to sound the same at 44.1, which turned out not to be the case, so it is not cut and dried by any means.

I'm not saying that there is no difference. I'm saying if your eventual format is 44.1 or 48, it is better to work at that sample rate to start with, IMO.

DG

Right, and VSL made a name for themselves by always being behind the times... /sarcasm... [Y]

I don't expect you to agree, but what's your loss? If you don't want it, don't use it. For VSL I would say now is the time it would make commercial sense. They could charge a reasonable premium for the upgrade. It would add to the prestige of the library, etc. even for those who wouldn't use it. Even if I didn't use it today, I would love to be able to re open a project a few years from now, and load the 96K samples and remaster it, then sell that as a HD version, which is a growing market. There's lots of reasons.

Here's some food for thought which I just found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SY5hI98HEi0#!

No need for sarcasm. I assumed that when you posted on a public forum you were interested in other people's opinions. I guess that's only true when they agree with you. Carry on then......  [;)]

DG

No but seriously - I guess by what you're saying they made a mistake and were deluded. Sorry but that's what you're getting at. Why do it then? I'm sorry but I get so frustrated with this backwards argument - there's no question there's a substantial and real difference. Now if you're talking about benefits of tracking, versus processing, versus delivery, or two or all of those things, that's debateable, is it worth it in x scenario etc. But I think there's no question, if you have source, processing and delivery, it is far superior to go 24/96 than 16/44. or even 24/44. If you don't agree, you are welcome to disagree, it's just that you seemed to be angling at the notion that it's all a waste of time and/or too complex for too little gain. I think that's a bit naive that's all. By the way, I am talking about delivery in 96. Aren't most HD movies at least 96k as standard? Isn't VSL used for scoring film where a real orchestra is out of budget (and to supplement real orchestras)? I rest my case.

Re those engineers you speak of, that sounds to me like a hardware issue rather than a problem with the format itself.

I did some googling and searching through scientific databases (I work at a university), however, I couldn't access the full text for any studies examining if there's any audible difference between 44.1 kHz and 96kHz. However, the impression I got from forums, audioblogs and the occasional abstract of scientific papers, is that the better the study, the less evidence for any audible difference. It seems that double blind studies of high quality reveal no audible difference, and the sloppier the study, the better the chance of confirming the difference is.

The following article has some interesting things to say:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html