Hi,

Im not sure what bitrate to use for recording my projects. what would
be a good bitrate for use in a professional recording studio for cd's
(I know that for dvds you need higher bitrates, but in my case Im
recording just cd's).

is there a big difference between 48khz and 96khz? I mean, if the
audio is going to be at 44.1khz whats the point of using a lot more
than that..?

My system can handle up to 96khz. should I consider buying something
with higher bitrates for a professional studio? should I stick with
48khz or 96khz is much better. maybe a bitrate higher than that is the
way to go.

Someone please explain.
Thank you!

F wrote:
Hi,

Im not sure what bitrate to use for recording my projects. what would
be a good bitrate for use in a professional recording studio for cd's
(I know that for dvds you need higher bitrates, but in my case Im
recording just cd's).

is there a big difference between 48khz and 96khz? I mean, if the
audio is going to be at 44.1khz whats the point of using a lot more
than that..?

My system can handle up to 96khz. should I consider buying something
with higher bitrates for a professional studio? should I stick with
48khz or 96khz is much better. maybe a bitrate higher than that is the
way to go.

Suck it and see if you can tell a difference. Only tricky bit is that you
need a (preferably fully acoustic) source that is repeatably identical.

geoff

If your target is CD which is 44.1 then it is in my experience much
better to record and mix at 44.1 than at 48. That extra step of
changing from 48 to 44.1 can mangle the sound quite a bit in several of
the common programs. Of course if you go to a professional mastering
house, they have good programs or good hardware available for the
conversion.

The most common step upwards in frequency is probably 96. At that speed
some things do sound different. But it also eats a lot of resources in
your computer and does limit you maximum track count. In my experience
you have to test on your specific set of hardware and software to see
if it really is worth it.

Personally I record and mix everything at 44.1.

Gunnar

F wrote:
Hi,

Im not sure what bitrate to use for recording my projects. what would
be a good bitrate for use in a professional recording studio for cd's
(I know that for dvds you need higher bitrates, but in my case Im
recording just cd's).

is there a big difference between 48khz and 96khz? I mean, if the
audio is going to be at 44.1khz whats the point of using a lot more
than that..?

My system can handle up to 96khz. should I consider buying something
with higher bitrates for a professional studio? should I stick with
48khz or 96khz is much better. maybe a bitrate higher than that is the
way to go.

Someone please explain.
Thank you!

I believe you mean "what SAMPLE RATE" to use. For bit-rate I would
suggest 24 bit,
till you get to the 'consumer' CD stage. Then dither to 16 bit.
The sample rate you could use, if it's final destination is a CD,
should be either
88.2k or 44.1k. If you're fairly new at this, stick to 44.1 and save
the disk space.
But if you can hear a difference you 'like' at 88.2, and can afford the
disc space, then
go with that. I doubt you will benefit at this stage with a 176.4 or
192k sampling rate.
Your digital converters will make more of a difference, and is more
important than which of these sample rates you use... As well as the
whole rest of your recording chain....
Best o' Luck
- Joe O/RBI Recording

"F" anonymous@ wrote in message

Hi,

Im not sure what bitrate to use for recording my
projects. what would be a good bitrate for use in a
professional recording studio for cd's (I know that for
dvds you need higher bitrates, but in my case Im
recording just cd's).
is there a big difference between 48khz and 96khz? I
mean, if the audio is going to be at 44.1khz whats the
point of using a lot more than that..?

My system can handle up to 96khz. should I consider
buying something with higher bitrates for a professional
studio? should I stick with 48khz or 96khz is much
better. maybe a bitrate higher than that is the way to go.

Someone please explain.

Better than an explanation - practical examples you can download and play:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/

Thanks for the reply (this is for everyone who replied to my post).
YES, I actually meaned "sample rate".. sorry I confused the term.
what you are saying is interesting: use 44.1k or 88.2k (which makes
some sense because it is exactly the double and maybe its easier to
convert to 44.1k.)

You know, I just arrived from attending to a recording school, and they
told me that the standard for recording in digitally was 48k, and that
44.1k (that was the standard some time ago) does not sound so good
because it was not able to capture some extra frequency ranges that
gave the notes some extra harmonics...

I use a MOTU 828 for recording, (actually 2 of those). so those are my
AD converters. I have an aditional 8 channel mic pre with adat card.
that I could either plug into the line inputs of my MOTU or use the
adat output but the only disadvantage is that adat only supports 4
channels with 88.2k or 96k.

How can you know the quality of a digital converter?, just by "hearing
the difference" or theres a way to actually test it. (maybe with an
oscilloscope, or with other method..).






I believe you mean "what SAMPLE RATE" to use. For bit-rate I would
suggest 24 bit,
till you get to the 'consumer' CD stage. Then dither to 16 bit.
The sample rate you could use, if it's final destination is a CD,
should be either
88.2k or 44.1k. If you're fairly new at this, stick to 44.1 and save
the disk space.
But if you can hear a difference you 'like' at 88.2, and can afford the
disc space, then
go with that. I doubt you will benefit at this stage with a 176.4 or
192k sampling rate.
Your digital converters will make more of a difference, and is more
important than which of these sample rates you use... As well as the
whole rest of your recording chain....
Best o' Luck
- Joe O/RBI Recording

wow, cool link. thank


Better than an explanation - practical examples you can download and play:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/

"F" anonymous@ wrote in message ...

You know, I just arrived from attending to a recording school, and they
told me that the standard for recording in digitally was 48k, and that
44.1k (that was the standard some time ago) does not sound so good
because it was not able to capture some extra frequency ranges that
gave the notes some extra harmonics...


That must be a very old school recording school.

Predrag

"gunnar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Personally I record and mix everything at 44.1.

Same here.

Predrag

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
"F" anonymous@ wrote in message ...

You know, I just arrived from attending to a recording school, and they
told me that the standard for recording in digitally was 48k, and that
44.1k (that was the standard some time ago) does not sound so good
because it was not able to capture some extra frequency ranges that
gave the notes some extra harmonics...

That must be a very old school recording school.

Probably one with an SV3700. And the SV3700, and some other gear from
that era, _does_ actually sound better at 48 ksamp/sec because the
filter artifacts are so bad.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

F wrote:

You know, I just arrived from attending to a recording school, and they
told me that the standard for recording in digitally was 48k, and that
44.1k (that was the standard some time ago) does not sound so good
because it was not able to capture some extra frequency ranges that
gave the notes some extra harmonics...

I hope you didn't pay much to attend that school. It used to be that
some DAT recorders sounded a little better at 48 kHz than at 44.1 kHz
because of the type of filters used in the A/D and D/A converters, but
with modern oversampling converters, the difference is so small as to
be negligable. However the audio and video industries eveolved their
standards of sample rate differently. The "low speed" standard for
audio is 44.1 kHz because that's the CD standard. The "low speed"
standard in the video industry is 48 kHz because that's what they
always used.

So if you're working with audio for CD, better to use 44.1 kHz than to
convert from 48 kHz. If you're working with audio for video however,
better to use 48 kHz becaue if you give them 44.1 kHz, they'll convert
it.

As far as 96 kHz goes, (and this is the "high speed" standard for audio
rather than 88.2 kHz, because it's most often delivered to the consumer
on DVD) there are some small advantages if the material contains some
frequencies above the normal audio range. A good example is if you're
going to be restoring 78 RPM records and there are pops (there are
always pops) which didn't get there by coming in through a microphone.
Those might contain some energy above 25 kHz. If you preserve them
accurately, you can make better use of the cleanup tools available -
sometimes.

My rule of thumb is to use what the client asks for or the industry
standard calls for. For general purpose audio recordings where I have
control, I use 44.1 kHz and save the disk space.

How can you know the quality of a digital converter?, just by
"hearing
the difference" or theres a way to actually test it. (maybe with an
oscilloscope, or with other method..).

Pretty much by listening. The numbers for the things that we know how
to measure are so small on all but really bad converters these days
that you really can't tell them apart by looking at test data. It's not
that there aren't measurable differences, we just don't know how to
measure them.

I know the conversation at hand is regarding staying in the Digital
Domain but, I mix from Da-88's into the console, through a Layla Card
into either Wave Lab or Sam and I was surprised by the difference
between 44.1 and 48-K. In this case of course, there is no sample rate
conversion necessary and I print the two track at 20-Bit-48-k, as the
Layla card is the Old 20-bit.

The biggest difference to me was in how stuff imaged. I'll use the word
"depth" to describe it.

Sorry for the Ramble.

John Ivan Greilick
Lansing MI.

ivis wrote:
I know the conversation at hand is regarding staying in the Digital
Domain but, I mix from Da-88's into the console, through a Layla Card
into either Wave Lab or Sam and I was surprised by the difference
between 44.1 and 48-K. In this case of course, there is no sample rate
conversion necessary and I print the two track at 20-Bit-48-k, as the
Layla card is the Old 20-bit.

You mean in the settings of the Layla, or in the settings on the DA-88?

I can believe changing the rate on the DA-88 would make a dramatic
difference... and I can also believe good outboard converters would make
a much more dramatic difference.

I am surprised that you'd see that much difference in the two-track with
the Layla, since that is really a sign of a converter problem. But if
it sounds better that way, do it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Hi Scot,
Yes, I am referring to the DA-88,s. In the case of Layla, I am
printing at 48-K because I some times fly audio back and forth through
the analog in's and out's of the card. {to and from the DA-88's, yeah,
I know, I need a 2408 so I can do this digitally.}. I have 48-k word
coming from the tape machines so, I need to have the layla set to 48-K.

I haven't specifically heard a difference between 44.1 and 48 on the
Layla, but I have not really A/B'd this either.

I would LOVE new converter's, however, I find the 20-Bit Layla to sound
all day as good as a Digi 888, {I' know, that's not saying a great
deal.}..

JI................................................ .................................................. .................................................. ..................

F wrote:
Thanks for the reply (this is for everyone who replied to my post).
YES, I actually meaned "sample rate".. sorry I confused the term.
what you are saying is interesting: use 44.1k or 88.2k (which makes
some sense because it is exactly the double and maybe its easier to
convert to 44.1k.)

You know, I just arrived from attending to a recording school, and
they told me that the standard for recording in digitally was 48k,
and that 44.1k (that was the standard some time ago) does not sound so
good
because it was not able to capture some extra frequency ranges that
gave the notes some extra harmonics...

I would ask for a refund on my course fees if I were you- the tutor is
incompetent. The difference in the two rate is less than one semitone, and
only your bat will hear it.

48K is a standard of sorts for audio-for-video. 44k1 is THE standard for any
audio destined for CD. You can downsample, but the artifacts from going from
48 to 44.1 outway any imagined difference.

geoff

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:33:27 +1200, "Geoff@home"
wrote:

48K is a standard of sorts for audio-for-video. 44k1 is THE standard for any
audio destined for CD.

Don't be snooty about 48KHz. There's a whole very professional
audio-visual world that standardised at 48KHz. Though they're moving
to higher rates now.

ivis wrote:
I know the conversation at hand is regarding staying in the Digital
Domain but, I mix from Da-88's into the console, through a Layla Card
into either Wave Lab or Sam and I was surprised by the difference
between 44.1 and 48-K. In this case of course, there is no sample rate
conversion necessary and I print the two track at 20-Bit-48-k, as the
Layla card is the Old 20-bit.

The biggest difference to me was in how stuff imaged. I'll use the word
"depth" to describe it.

The Layla is even older than my studio computer, and things weren't as
good back then as they are now. It's possible that the way the data
clocking works in that unit, it gets a lower jitter clock at 48 kHz
than at 44.1, or it may be that the D/A converters just sound better
because of a different filter. Also, most people have better monitoring
today than they did back when the Layla was new, so it's easier to hear
small differences.

When I reviewed the Layla for Recording late in 1998, I didn't really
hear any significant difference between 44.1 and 48 kHz, but then I
only tried that with two channels in/out and not on a multitrack mix. I
did, however, notice a worthwhile difference between recording at
16-bit and 20-bit resolution (in addition to double sized files).

ivis wrote:

Yes, I am referring to the DA-88,s.

From your description, it sounded like you were going analog into the
Layla and switching the Layla from 44.1 to 48 kHz. No surprise that the
DA-88 sounded better at 48 kHz. In this case, It would, even without
the Layla in the system.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:33:27 +1200, "Geoff@home"
wrote:

48K is a standard of sorts for audio-for-video. 44k1 is THE standard
for any audio destined for CD.

Don't be snooty about 48KHz. There's a whole very professional
audio-visual world that standardised at 48KHz. Though they're moving
to higher rates now.

So take 48K to rec.audio-visual.pro .

There is a a whole audio-audio world standardised at 44K1, and has been for
over 20 years. The only higher rates of interest being 88K2, 96K, and 192K
for those that imagine that there is some gain .


geoff

ivis wrote:
Yes, I am referring to the DA-88,s. In the case of Layla, I am
printing at 48-K because I some times fly audio back and forth through
the analog in's and out's of the card. {to and from the DA-88's, yeah,
I know, I need a 2408 so I can do this digitally.}. I have 48-k word
coming from the tape machines so, I need to have the layla set to 48-K.

If you're doing analogue transfers, it doesn't matter how the card is
set because it's just analogue data.

I would LOVE new converter's, however, I find the 20-Bit Layla to sound
all day as good as a Digi 888, {I' know, that's not saying a great
deal.}..

Yes, but what about the converters in the DA-88? If you are using the
analogue outputs on the DA-88... well... the internal converters are
somewhat less than wonderful in there.

You could pull out of the DA-88 digitally, or you could just use an
outboard A/D/A box on the DA-88 so the analogue ins and outs would sound
better. If you're using an analogue console, the latter is a great
sound improvement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I'm not completely sure about this, but what I think the advantages
about using high sample rates is in effects procesors. maybe if you
record something @ 44.1 and then record it with 96k and dowsample it to
44.1, you can't hear the difference; BUT if you use compressors,
effects, and all kind of stuff in those tracks, the one with higher
samplerate will be calculated better and will not loose so much
resolution. and after that you can finally downsample it to 44.1.
I dont know, maybe what Im saying is nonsense but that was what I had
understand about the whole sample rate thing. "you cant hear it, but
machines and processors can".



Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:33:27 +1200, "Geoff@home"
wrote:

48K is a standard of sorts for audio-for-video. 44k1 is THE standard
for any audio destined for CD.

Don't be snooty about 48KHz. There's a whole very professional
audio-visual world that standardised at 48KHz. Though they're moving
to higher rates now.

So take 48K to rec.audio-visual.pro .

There is a a whole audio-audio world standardised at 44K1, and has
been for over 20 years. The only higher rates of interest being 88K2,
96K, and 192K for those that imagine that there is some gain .


geoff



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Hi Mike.

Yes, I am saying that I format the DA-88's at 48-K because I liked the
sound better. Because I am running the Tape Machines in sync with the
Computer, I of course need the sample rate of both the Machines and the
Card to be the same.

Yes, the transfers I'm talking about are from the DA-88's, into and out
,,back into the DA's using Analog. I of course, sometimes leave some
audio in the software. This depends on how many tracks I need and so
on.

Some of these pop mixes get stupid big track count wise. I wish I could
just print bands to 16 tracks and be done but,, that's not how it ends
up these days. {unless I'm doing my own tunes.

John Ivan Greilick
Lansing MI.

ivis wrote:

Yes, I am saying that I format the DA-88's at 48-K because I liked the
sound better. Because I am running the Tape Machines in sync with the
Computer, I of course need the sample rate of both the Machines and the
Card to be the same.

I'm not sure why you're running the tape machines in synch with the
computer. How are you locking them?

But I am not surprised that the DA-88 analogue ins and outs sound better
at 48. The converters on the DA-88 are really awful. Surprisingly, the
DA-38 is actually an improvement and the machines are cheaper.

Yes, the transfers I'm talking about are from the DA-88's, into and out
,,back into the DA's using Analog. I of course, sometimes leave some
audio in the software. This depends on how many tracks I need and so
on.

If you are indeed doing this, I strongly recommend looking at something
like the RME ADI-8. You can get the older model that doesn't do 96 ksamp/sec
and probably shows up more cheaply. I think you'll be amazed at how much
better it sounds than using the internal converters in the DA-88. It's
no Prism, but it's a lot of bang for the buck.

Some of these pop mixes get stupid big track count wise. I wish I could
just print bands to 16 tracks and be done but,, that's not how it ends
up these days. {unless I'm doing my own tunes.

How many DA-88s do you _have_? Locking those things is a pain.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

For the sake of clarity. I lock the DA-88's to the sound card with TC
and word clock because I will sometimes have Audio Tracks coming from
the Tape, the Computer and MIDI tracks all landing on the console.
While this method of sync is not sample locked, it is off by a
consistent number of samples and wont drift.

I get some comb filtering if I split stereo signals {leave one on the
computer and play the other from tape} But, I can send things like
vocals or guitars over to edit and it works great. I can also ship a
whole drum kit over for editing . This has been set up this way for a
long time and has been trouble free.

John Ivan Greilick.
Lansing MI.

Scott Dorsey Wrote:

"If you are indeed doing this, I strongly recommend looking at
something
like the RME ADI-8. You can get the older model that doesn't do 96
ksamp/sec
and probably shows up more cheaply. I think you'll be amazed at how
much
better it sounds than using the internal converters in the DA-88. It's

no Prism, but it's a lot of bang for the buck. "




Ya know,? Those RME ADI-8 things look like they would be great and like
you point out, I don't need the 96-K version. I could greatly improve
my audio quite inexpensively.

Thanks for the pointer ;-}. I tend to leave things alone once they work
well and I kind of stopped looking around other than the 2408, which
I've heard, and thought it was OK for the money but I've heard people
say the RME stuff sounds better. I'll check this out.

John Ivan Greilick
Lansing MI.

Im not sure what bitrate to use for recording my projects. what would be a
good bitrate for use in a professional recording studio for cd's (I know
that for dvds you need higher bitrates, but in my case Im recording just
cd's).

is there a big difference between 48khz and 96khz? I mean, if the audio is
going to be at 44.1khz whats the point of using a lot more than that..?

My system can handle up to 96khz. should I consider buying something with
higher bitrates for a professional studio? should I stick with 48khz or
96khz is much better. maybe a bitrate higher than that is the way to go.

My approach is that the high-definition argument is one of marketing, not
sound quality. If you offer high-definition recording for only 10% more
than your 48kHz competition, that's a serious advantage, regardless of
whether it actually helps or not. My take on the sound quality advantage is
that if it can help, I wouldn't know how to take full advantage of it, nor
would I expect any such advantage to pass through consumer stereo equipment
intact.

So far the only one around here acknowledging any supersonics from high-def
content is my cat, who meows hysterically at harmonicas and some other
reeds, and he doesn't react to the same content once it's been converted to
44.1. That also presents a strong argument against consumer high-definition
playback equipment. The studies I've read indicate that humans can detect a
difference between content with and without supersonics, but were unreliable
at identifying which was which. What good are supersonics when they are not
discernable, especially with a cat or dog howling next to you?

So I'm of the opinion that the desire for high-def stems from the same
desire to have a car that can do 200mph when the owner has no expectation to
ever want to exceed 100mph. It's a marketing angle, nothing more. What I
think is fueling the demand is the coincidental improvement in converter
quality with the advent of inexpensive high-def chips. They are better at
48kHz than chips that can't exceed 48kHz, but probably because the ability
to do high-def comes with a more stable clock. I think it's the stability
of the clock that helps, not the tempo.

My interfaces can do 192kHz (Echo AudioFire 12), but I record at 88.2kHz for
CD's. I also have a ballsy quad-core PC to handle the CPU draw. I wouldn't
recommend high-def on less than a top-end dual-core or dual CPU system, 2x
2GHz minimum. I'm running 4x 2GHz, which could handle a full 192kHz mix if
asked to do so. So in my case I can advertise a 192kHz-capable DAW without
my fingers crossed behind my back, but I frankly I wouldn't take on a client
who insisted on it for less than 35% more than 88.2, on the basis that the
unfounded desire for ultra-high-def probably accompanies a willingness to
throw money out the window.

And I'm the first to admit it's pointless too. I've already had a client
ask me if high-def makes a substantial difference, to which I replied "none
whatsoever". He still opted for high-def because "just in case we decide to
remix it in the future, we want to be up-to-date." People can talk
themselves into anything... Still, it landed me the client and he paid $600
above what I quoted at 44.1, so it's fine by me.

The funny part is that multi-channel surround sound is very discernable, but
I won't touch it with a 10' pole because I discourage people from wasting
their money on it, and recommend they spend the same money on higher grade
stereo gear. Dolby and George Lucas can bite me. But in the case of
high-def audio, there is no savings in opting for better 48kHz-max
converters because all the good ones can do 96+. Might as well incorporate
it into the marketing plan.

F anonymous@ wrote:

You know, I just arrived from attending to a recording school, and
they told me that the standard for recording in digitally was 48k,
and that 44.1k (that was the standard some time ago) does not sound so
good
because it was not able to capture some extra frequency ranges that
gave the notes some extra harmonics...


Choose a different school. The one you attended is obviously run by
people who fill the holes in their understanding of digital audio with
complete bull****.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Geoff@home wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:33:27 +1200, "Geoff@home"
wrote:

48K is a standard of sorts for audio-for-video. 44k1 is THE
standard for any audio destined for CD.

Don't be snooty about 48KHz. There's a whole very professional
audio-visual world that standardised at 48KHz. Though they're
moving to higher rates now.

So take 48K to rec.audio-visual.pro .

There is a a whole audio-audio world standardised at 44K1, and has
been for over 20 years. The only higher rates of interest being
88K2, 96K, and 192K for those that imagine that there is some gain .



So to you, an audio project has less value if there's a picture
associated with it? Film sound, TV sound, they don't "belong" among the
audio-only set of rec.audio.pro?

Typing that got me thinking, I wonder which format moved more units last
year, CD or DVD? Not that it matters, just kinda wonderin'...

From a purely business standpoint, sound for pix has been better to me
than music projects, and has actually been a better creative outlet.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
Geoff@home wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:33:27 +1200, "Geoff@home"
wrote:

48K is a standard of sorts for audio-for-video. 44k1 is THE
standard for any audio destined for CD.

Don't be snooty about 48KHz. There's a whole very professional
audio-visual world that standardised at 48KHz. Though they're
moving to higher rates now.

So take 48K to rec.audio-visual.pro .

There is a a whole audio-audio world standardised at 44K1, and has
been for over 20 years. The only higher rates of interest being
88K2, 96K, and 192K for those that imagine that there is some gain .



So to you, an audio project has less value if there's a picture
associated with it?

Of course not. But because "There's a whole very professional audio-visual
world that standardised at 48KHz" equally doesn't mean that music without a
picture is worthless, and there is little point for (and some against) in
choosing 48K over 44K1 if the primary destination is CD.

Go into high sampling rates (ie 88K2 and over), then it makes less odds
whichever specific rate you choose.

geoff

F wrote:
Hi,

Im not sure what bitrate to use for recording my projects. what would
be a good bitrate for use in a professional recording studio for cd's
(I know that for dvds you need higher bitrates, but in my case Im
recording just cd's).

is there a big difference between 48khz and 96khz? I mean, if the
audio is going to be at 44.1khz whats the point of using a lot more
than that..?

My system can handle up to 96khz. should I consider buying something
with higher bitrates for a professional studio? should I stick with
48khz or 96khz is much better. maybe a bitrate higher than that is the
way to go.

Actually, you're talking about sampling rates, not bit rates. And for
what it's worth: I do everything in 44.1 kHz and manage just fine.

RS

"F" anonymous@ wrote in message

I'm not completely sure about this, but what I think the
advantages about using high sample rates is in effects
procesors. maybe if you record something @ 44.1 and then
record it with 96k and dowsample it to 44.1, you can't hear the
difference; BUT if you use
compressors, effects, and all kind of stuff in those
tracks, the one with higher samplerate will be calculated
better and will not loose so much resolution. and after
that you can finally downsample it to 44.1. I dont know, maybe what Im
saying is nonsense but that
was what I had understand about the whole sample rate
thing. "you cant hear it, but machines and processors
can".

One fallacy is that increasing the sample rate of audio signals after
digitization does not increase resolution.

However, doing your processing with longer data words might make that
processing more precise.

However, 16 bits has about an order of magnitude more resolution or more
than any real-world recording.

In the case of things like denoising legacy recordings, sampling at higher
sample rates from the onset of digitization can be more effective becuase
the in-band noise might have out-of-band components that help differentiate
in-band signal from in-band noise.