Topic: To keep at 96/24 or not (internal mics question)

[gambra]

I have an Edirol R-09 recorder set to record at 96khz/24bit but I only use the internal mics to tape, no externals. I usually just convert the recordings down to standard 44/16 in post when I'm making files for distribution. However I just taped a band that I know some people might like in the 96/24 format but my question is, is it worthwhile? The file sizes are huge given the length of the show and I don't know if its worth it for just internal mics. I usually don't even keep the masters in 96/24 for other shows as I can't listen to them properly myself.

[Marshall7]

I stopped doing 24/96 and now do 24/48 exclusively.  But with internals...seems like overkill.

[dyneq]

Only you can decide what sampling rate to use based on your own ABX tests. I do not have golden ears and there are many double-blind tests which indicate that I'm far from alone. Here's an article summarizing one of those tests:

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

and here's an article with lots of good background info on the topic of bit rate and sampling rate so you can make an informed decision:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I record at 24/44.1 and distribute at 16/44.1 because it sounds great and uses the least disk space.

[Gutbucket]

Unless you've the activated the capability via the hidden menu, the R-09 is not capable of higher than 48kHz sampling rates. Even if you have done that, 96kHz is not a supported feature of that machine.  The follow up R-09HR offered up to 96kHz as a standard feature.  Whether the analog circuitry of the machine prior to the analog-to-digital converter and ADC implementation itself makes rates higher than 48kHz and sample sizes greater than 16bits worthwhile has been long open to debate.