Funny thing is, we're all scratching our heads and wondering why so much effort is put forth to cram it onto a crappy mp3 for ipod...which strangely coincides with how many of the greatest recording studios in the world are being closed and sold off for condos, real estate..etc.
In any case, I feel safe to say none of us would benefit in any measurable way by working above 44.1 here...so keep it simple and keep it 44.1.
-Marc
I think you already answered that with your closing line.
44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, downsampling algorithms, rendering, intersample clipping, jitter, Nyquist Theorem, resistor thermal noise, slew rates, damping factor ........................................... and any other term you may want to insert here.
Nowdays for most of us (grown up adults) , almost none of those terms really afect the quality of our recordings, except for bit depth ( and this is only if you do lots of post processing). Marketing experts just need to create needs on our side to keep us buying new toys
Even if we can afford a high quality recording enviroment, acoustically speaking, the differences between "mid-priced" gear are so subtle that we can't really tell the diference (except for the placebo effect
as already stated). And most of us can't really hear above 16Khz (grown up adults).
I'm only speaking about "transparent" audio, I mean, no extra coloration added in the audio process (excluding enviroment and speakers). I think the differences perceved between mid priced and hi end pro equipment are "inserted" on purpose by the "high end" brands
this story about Bob Carver always comes to my mind when discussing this subject
Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he'd duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines took him up on the challenge.
First, The Audio Critic chose a Mark Levinson ML-2 which Bob acoustically copied (transfer function duplication) and sold as his M1.5t amplifier (the "t" stood for transfer function modified).
In 1985, Stereophile magazine challenged Bob to copy a Conrad-Johnson Premier Five (the make and model was not named in the challenge but revealed later) amplifier at their offices in New Mexico within 48 hours. The Conrad Johnson amplifier was one of the most highly regarded amplifiers of its day, costing in excess of $12,000.
Of note that in both cases, the challenging amplifier could only be treated as a "black box" and could not even have its lid removed. Nevertheless, Carver, using null difference testing, successfully copied the sound of the target amplifier and won the challenge. The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment, and in their own listening room. He marketed "t" versions of his amplifiers incorporating the sound of the Mark Levinson and Conrad Johnson designs which caused him some criticism by those who failed to understand the true nature of the challenge -- that it was possible to duplicate an audio amplifier's sound in two completely dissimilar designs. In light of this criticism, Bob Carver went on to design the Silver Seven, the most expensive and esoteric conventional amplifier up to that time and duplicated its sound in his M 4.0t and later models which sold for some 1/40th the price (around $600-$1500).
transfer functions, convolution, psychoaoustics, mp3s... oops not again
This story is very very interesting because this was done back in 1985 and today we are centuries ahead regarding technology and audio processing. The only factor that remains the same is human subjectivity
All this just to agree with Marc and Mark: Keep it simple, keep it 44.1 unless it's intended for video.
Sorry for the lengthy post but I'm a tech geek
