Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

[AngryMonkey]

Hi,
I have just bought a Presonus FP10 as my first home studio recording equipment (up until now I have just been using a laptop sound card).

Should I record at 96khz now that I have the capability? What benifit does this bring to me?

My recordings sound ok at 44khz so im assuming the actual quality of the sound wont change?

Thanks,
AM.

[drago]

Originally Posted by AngryMonkey

Hi,
I have just bought a Presonus FP10 as my first home studio recording equipment (up until now I have just been using a laptop sound card).

Should I record at 96khz now that I have the capability? What benifit does this bring to me?

My recordings sound ok at 44khz so im assuming the actual quality of the sound wont change?

Thanks,
AM.

It certainly can't hurt to record at 96k, unless you have issues with your hard drive. Though you'd be better off recording at 24 bit if you haven't been already, instead fo upping to the sample rate.

[richiebee]

96k is overkill for anyone that needs to ask (and for virtually everyone who doesn't!).

I do all audio only work at 44.1 and all DVD work at 48. You'll find more of a quality difference using 24bit resolution instead of 16.

The overhead is not worth any marginal benefit of going higher than 44.1 for CD.

I work mostly on classical stuff, and all mastering engineers I've ever spoken to want everything recorded at 44.1/24.

R.

[drago]

Yeah... actually if you want to up the sample rate I would suggest 88.2k if you are recording music. But the bitrate is more important.