Can I really hear a difference between 24 bit/44.1K and 96K? Not really ... but psychologically, I feel comforted knowing that geez, there sure is lots of data being written to the SD card. More must be better, right?
About the 24 bit/44.1 or 96K, I use (my) common sense: the 96K option can't be worst, so I use it.
Actually according to Guysonic's R-09HR testing, the line-in RMS noise floor measurement increases a bit when recording 96kHz vs 44.1khz (no data shown for 48 & 88.2 rates). The noise of the HR in that case increases by a dB or two to approximately the same level as the old R-09. Can you actually hear that? I dunno. Are there other factors that make a 96Khz recording subjectively sound better than a 44.1kHz recording on the same R-09 HR or vs. a 44.1kHz recording made on an old R-09? Could be. But considering only the RMS noise measurement on the HR, 44.1Khz performs slightly better than 96kHz.
My point is that more data isn't
necessarily better. There are trade offs, and as I mention above those trade offs may not only be limited to the increased size of the resulting files. Personally I feel that doubling the size of my files isn't worth the questionable (to my ears) benefit of the higher sampling rates it so I stick with 48kHz, but I do feel that using 24bits is worthwhile. If CDs were my ultimate listening medium I'd record at 44.1 or, if I was willing to take the space hit and heard something that changed my mind about higher sample rates, 88.2 kHz on the HR, but not 48 or 96 kHz since the sample rate conversion required from those rates to 44.1 might easily eliminate any of the benefit that I can't hear anyway.
Of course these are just the personal choices I've made. I don't mean to dissuade anyone from recording at 96kHz. Just keep your mind and ears open and be suspicious of your own assumptions. Don't fall prey to the marketeers simplistic refrain of
more is better! The real story is always always more complicated.
