Phil, What is your opinion when recording at 16 bit regarding 48khz sampling, then resampling to 44.1, versus just mastering at 44.1? I have heard mixed opinions on that. Some say that the analog anti-alaising filters in ADs at 44.1 impact the sound quality more than doing 48khz, since the filters are kicking in at a higher frequency. Then, the thinking goes, resampling to 44.1 delivers a better end result than if mastered at 44.1 originally, supposedly. I have always stayed at 48khz, but now wonder if I am really wasting time with that step.
I ask you this because at one time, resampling was thought to be a very destructive thing to do to audio files. I suppose with today's higher end software, this is not as much an issue, but you are the studio guy and should know.
This is a very good question!
From 2000 to up until about a year ago I was recording everything at 24bit/48k, both in the studio and for live stuff too. A well known Nashville engineer and I were talking about this very subject and after listening to his thoughts and then following up with some of my own tests, I changed my mind. I now record at 24bit/44.1k.
Since 99% of what I do is to wind up at 16/44, why resample. I don't ever mix anything down to 16/48.
The differences in quality are just NOT great enough to warrant the extra time, space, and potential artifacts from the resample.
I decided a long time ago that 96k is a ridiculous waste of space and really more about gear hype than actual improvements. The real difference comes at the 16/24 bit level.
Now, if I were still recording at 16bit in the field, I would use 48k. I have always sensed a difference in that at 16bit, even going back to the DAT days in the 90's.
Once you reach the 24 bit realm, that difference is virtually impercievable from 44k to 96k. Some would argue this point I'm sure, but my experience tells me otherwise.
I guess the differences are probably pretty small here, so I don't waste time with the extra step. Makes my life easier.