Quote:
Originally Posted by cathode
... we may have lost an incredible technology when sucessive approximation was replaced with delta-sigma. 96 better than 44.1? Maybe. But it has a long way to go to MATCH a great analog tape transferred to a hot-rodded 1610.
Interesting point and I heard similar from experienced engineers and producers

, some of them even prefer and use older converter designs with 44 and 48 kHz with 20-bit depth for tracking (although they use only analogue processing and mixing) THAT SOUND DEFINITELY CLOSER TO ANALOGUE than 24/192 presently.
I don't fully share their opinion, but finished projects I heard were astonishing.
If somebody is striving to reach sonic nirvana, focusing on 96 or 192 sample rates only would not do a lot.
It would bring real improvement to consider more appropriate mixing solution and choice of effect-processors than to scream how 96k or 192k dramatically improved 'flat, two-dimensional, thin, plastic, harsh etc.' sound of 48k.
Such audible differences, if exist on particular material, resulted to greatest extent due to lesser quality converters, questionable processing and mixing algorithms than principal improvement that 96k gives over 48k (that is practically not audible when good conversion and appropriate mixing is applied).
So, returning to original question
96k vs. 48 will most likely not provide or guarantee better mix, if everything else is done correctly and proper routine is used during the whole path. In same time some marginal differences that could be perceived as improvement are noticeable on some materials, so without doubt when such occurs there is no reason to exclude 96k as preferred choice.
To calm minds of our 'hi-tech conscious'

clients we have 88k-192k always ready to be switched on and often this is the main improvement

we can really do with that.
GYang