I've been recording in 24 bit 44.1 and I've never had someone say hey I think it will sound better in 48k.. I'd rather have a nice stable environment then a pubic hair difference in audio quality

 

Audio quality and tech specs can't be decoupled was the point I was trying to make. But fair enough.

 

It might come down to “noise floor.”

Bits are all about dynamic range. Hertz are all about the width of the frequency spectrum.

 

I record everything at 96 and work the mix and master at 44.1. While some prefer to work on 48 and convert to 44.1 at the very end, i try to get the highest resolution on the recording process to avoid convertions on the latter process. I don't like 48 in any manner. Most of the plugins nowdays have oversampling, so i don't feel i need to upsample the whole session in order to get sound quality. I mean, 48 is 'standard', i don't want to enter the rabbit hole of this discussion. Just sharing my experience.

 

And do you think you can say the same thing about 24bit vs 16bit?

 

The easiest approach for anyone to follow would simply be to understand what your end-goal is any time you begin a new project.

Is your project going to end up on CD? 16/44.1 is your answer.
Is your project going to end up on DVD/BluRay? 24/48 is your answer.
Is your project going to end up on Vinyl? 24/96 (This is absolutely ridiculous and illogical, but hey, it is what it is!)

 

Actually it's more of a weasel hole.

 

Either way, it's a hole