Corey, I have learned from some who know that the math is no simpler from 88.2 or 96k to 44.1 - it is highly complex either way. Never a simple halving!
You can’t make it simpler that way, the logic is faulty.
And I’m “old school “ too so I record at 24bit! Didn’t have the capablility of recording 32 float until the past few years.
When I was editing a lot of analog tape before digital happened for me, I scorned the digital way saying I could get more than 44.1K razor blades into 7.5 inches, thinking I had the finer resolution. Same kind of faulty logic!
But neither of us really addresses Hugh’s question!
> On Nov 21, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Hugh,
> I agree with your statement regarding quality. However, I usually record at higher sample rates and greater bit depths. If it's intended for a record or CD, I usually record, or transfer, at 88.2kHz. If it is a recording or a transfer for archival purposes, I usually record at 96kHz. All digital files are recorded at 32 Bits. Why? Because, I'm "old school" (Not to mention that I'm getting old). I still don't trust sample rate conversion, even though I can't hear the difference of a file that was down converted to 44.1K from 96K. So, I try to make the math simpler for the software. Why not record or transfer at the intended sample rate & bit depth? Well, I do. When doing an archival transfer, I use two computers, each running at the intended sample rate. Higher sample rates & larger bit depths generate fewer digital artifacts when processing for restoration purposes. And, I can still hear those digital artifacts when they are generated.
> My $0.02