HI ed,

Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression(maybe incorrectly.lol) that if you had 2 projects--1 recorded in 44.1khz/16bit and 1 in 96khz/24 bit and you did the final mix and master track, that the 96k would sound a lot better--even on a cd. Someone told me that was because once the projects(tracks) go thru all the compression,effects,etc the 44.1khz ends up being sub par when compared to the 96khz. Again, this may be totally off base--I'm just trying to figure it out. Or in other words--is it possible to get an excellent recording when using 44.1khz/16 bit equipment along with obviously a professional mike? I recently entered a song into a competition. The critique came back that most everything(lyrics,tempo,instruments,etc) were good but the recording was bad. I used biab along with garageband, and an 8 track digital 44.1khz/16 bit recorder. I also used Rokit monitors to listen with. So I'm trying to figure out if it was my inexperience or the quality of the equipment I was using. I know a lot comes into play-like the environment, equipment, vocal quality. etc. That's how I got into thinking about the audiophile realtracks vs the regualr realtracks as far as quality. Thanks Again,
Roger