Exporing to mp3 quality question

[theseus75]

I'm watching a tutorial video series on "secrets of the pros" for recording. It mentions recording in 88.2Mhz sample rate b/c CDs are 44.1 and if that's your final product, that it's better b/c it "easily divides" into 44.1. Is there validity in that?

I record at 96Mhz b/c I want to be able to offer a lossless and mp3 version of my tracks (which will be at 44 b/c I'm assuming that - if not on the iPod - it would be burned to CD), but I want to make sure that I'm not missing some arcane export practice by not putting it at 88.2.

Thanks.

[steve]

I would recommend sticking with 44.1kHz if that's going to be your final sample rate.

I'm watching a tutorial video series on "secrets of the pros" for recording. It mentions recording in 88.2Mhz sample rate b/c CDs are 44.1 and if that's your final product, that it's better b/c it "easily divides" into 44.1. Is there validity in that?

On the surface it would seem so, but has anyone got hardware that runs internally at 88.2 kHz? Shop around and you won't find any. So that means even if you set your recording rate to 88.2 kHz and it works, there will still be a conversion going on somewhere from one of the standard sample rates to 88.2. The improvement in sound quality from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz is primarily in the very high frequency range (above 16 kHz), but unless you are using pretty exotic equipment it's all going to be a bit "iffy" up at that end anyway, so the benefits are extremely marginal at best. On the other hand, file size. data throughput and processing time increase by more than double, putting more strain on processor, hard drive and all other parts of the system. It's very rare that the benefits of going up to 96 kHz outweigh the cons.

This is not the same when comparing 16 bit to 32 bit. in spite of the doubling of data from 16 to 32 bit, for much audio production work there are clear advantages to working in 32 bit. The default settings in Audacity are 44100 Hz, 32 bit (float). It's not an accident or arbitrary choice.

[theseus75]

@steve - Good to know. I guess I've gone with recording with a 96 kHz sample rate largely b/c I can. I envision that my end product would be burned to CD or listened to on an iPod or other mp3 device, so 44.1 would indeed be the rate 99% of the time. I was thinking 96 mostly to have a "higher quality" option for download, but perhaps it's worth rethinking if there are only marginal differences, and considering resource allocation. I guess I'm also thinking in terms of "future proofing", though I admit ignorance if something like a bumped up sample rate would even fall in line with making a track more future-proof than one at 44.1. Definitely something to chew on.

Thanks!