Question for recording artist/engineers

Thanks indeed. Yes my original post does indicate the material in question was already recordered but I will attempt to revisit that project. We just recorded the latest cd (which we are now finishing for a spring release) into Pro-Tools H.D. at 96k and I used my Avalon Tube pre-amp with a Neumann M 147 Tube Mic ( which I didn't have for last cd. I had a different Neumann at that studio but it wasn't the tube version) and Manley Stereo "Variable-Mu " Compressor on my horn, and the sonic difference is dramatic at 96k . Everything sparkles and the rhodes and synth pads don't decay as quickly. To my ear, there is a pronounced difference at 96K but what you are saying about the front end and what gear is used makes all the difference in the world. I also a/b'd the sonic difference from using an Apogee Rosetta A/D converter at 96K into Pro-Tools versus slaving the Pro-Tools converters to an Aardsync Clock at 96K and experienced a dramatic increase in sonic purity as well. Man, there is a ton of stuff to learn and I am still just trying to get my horn to play!

Thanks again for all your input. You folks are great and that is why I really value your comments, because without them, I am much more prone to repeating mistakes without even realizing it. For me music is the only game in town.

Happy listening.

Minimalism will always gain you alot asuuming what gear is left in the signal chain is good. I routinely use a battery powered Crown SASSP that I've heavily modified incorporating a built in hand made minimalist battery powered mic pre feeding a modified Alesis Masterlink through a one meter pair of Maplshade/Insound ribbon interconnects at 88.2k sampling at 24 bit later reduced to redbook standard. All editing is done on the Masterlink. The sound becomes very dependent on the room and mic/musician placement. Sound is superb. Price is very reasonable.

Again, 96k is a waste of reconversion. 88.2 is just halved into 44.1 without total reconversion. You gain the higher res for recording, signal processing, if at all, editing and archiving with no down side.

That's not correct Piedpiper. 88.2k is not just halved to 44.1k. Conversions from 96k and from 88.2k to 44.1k both need a low pass filter and rate conversion algorithm. Also the conversion from 96k to 44.1k involves no losses relative to 88.2k to 44.1k. It just needs the right high quality conversion algorithm, which is present in the Sonic Solutions workstation.

Thanks for the input. The low pass filter makes sense but why wouldn't they just throw out every other sample? Why go with higher sample rate then? Archival only?