Are there any benefits using working with 24 or 32 bits and 88.2kHz or 96kHz for example other than the higher signal to nose ratio and higher freqency range?
Can this make audio sound less "digital" when resampled and dithered to 16bits/44kHz?

Im using 96 24 b for mastering .. then downsample everything ... i think that the reverbs i'm using in my songs dont cut hard at 22 khz ..

I'm always rendering (from reason and cubase) my songs at the highest bitrate and samplerate (24B 96 khz or 32B) .

Then when the effects (read smash the mix to be as loud as commercial stuff) are applied in soundforge i downwsample .

But the problem musically speaking of course cause i'm not a technical guru , is that compression and maximising give some humph to a digital only mix.

And people (non audiophile of course) prefer the "loud" mix because I think sound is so subjective .. and people are not (not here of course!) aware of any loudness race.

Have you read the pdf from waves L2 ultramaximizer ?
http://www.waves.com/

here's a quote if i may ? hope it's ok :

''The maximum level of a digital signal is governed by the highest peak in the
file. Simple normalization finds the highest peak, then raises the entire signal
so that this peak is at the maximum value. However, many of these peaks
may be of very short duration and can usually be reduced in level by several
dBs with minimal audible side effects. Those familiar with digital editing
systems may even have proved this for themselves by ‘redrawing’ some
trouble-some peaks by hand. By transparently controlling these peaks, the
entire level of the file can be raised several more dB than by simple
normalization resulting in a higher average signal level.
The L2-Ultramaximizer avoids the possibility of overshoot by utilizing a
lookahead technique that allows the system to anticipate and reshape signal
peaks in a way that produces the bare minimum of audible artifacts. Because
there is no possibility of overshoot, L2 can be used with absolute confidence
in situations where brickwall limiting is important.''

Humm the part about brickwall ...

But of course my favorite 'best sounding cd are from the 80s' sting sound of the blue turtle , chik corea electric band (first one) and a classical bethoven piano cd.

anyway that was my 2 cents.

I love Chick Corea!
Most of his stuff is well recorded.

Did you try the FAQ ? http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....indpost&p=74075

Can I make the conclusion that 44100 Hz is the ideal sample rate?
Is the dithering and resampling tools included in foobar2000 better than any tools included in sound forge or cool edit or wavelab? Which setting should I use?

Are there any other parameters of interest in audio? :-)

"Hi, can you think of any other benefits of owning a car other than getting to places where it's too far to walk?"

The things that are fun in the backseat...

This would be a hasty conclusion. The debate is very hot. But it seems that 48 kHz would be, if not audibly better, at least more convenient for designing filters, than 44.1 kHz, without using much more space.

Okay, I'm sorry about asking stupid question, but the theres alot of talk about this topic and I can't make any conclusion by my self.
When I produce music, is there any point in using high samplerates like 96-192 kHz or should 44 or 48 be enough? And can you resample music from a mulitple of 48 to 44.1 kHz without major loss(using something good like SSRC)?

Recording, mixing and mastering at high bit depths and sample rates will help avoid aliasing issues and rounding errors for when you resample down to 44.1.

I don't have a 48 capable sound card, so I don't know for sure, but I would recommend against resamping 48 to 44.1. It just doesn't feel right to me using such a low resampling ratio. Working with images, using a low scale factor when resizing images never gives good results.

It's not like I really expect you to abx your claims right now, but backing them up with any kind of proper reasoning on a technical level would be nice to begin with. No, a gut feeling and a poor analogy (hah) to image resampling won't do.