Record in 96khz then convert to 48khz?

[MikeX]

Should I record my tracks at 96khz and convert to 48khz for PT or should I just record in 48khz? The reason being is I CAN record straight from my preamp to 96khz but since you can only use a limited number of tracks in LE with 96khz I would like to convert them down a bit.

Which would be better?

[sw rec]

Hmmmm...when you first set up a session is when you decide what the sample rate will be, so record at 96k is certainly a viable option, BUT when you convert (assuming you're going to CD) they're going to be 44.1khz, not 48. I've heard some people say if you MUST go high sample rate, and take the conversion into account, record at 88.2 so it's a 2:1 conversion. But can you HEAR the difference????
Other main question, though, if memory serves, an Mbox won't do 96k anyway (forgive me if I'm wrong about this) and you won't gain a thing by recording at a high sample rate and down-converting. (If the Mbox doesn't do 96 k, what are you recording on? This seems to me like an unnecessary extra step....)
And for what one guy's opinion is worth, I do everything at 44.1khz, 24 bit, bounce finals to 44.1k 16 bit for cd's and they sound great.

An addendum.....your Mbox won't go 96k anyway.(Unless it's a PRO) Best to do everything at 44.1 (IMHO!)

[daeron80]

If you're not gonna mix at 96, there's probably not much point tracking at that rate. It's said by some that most converter chips these days are optimized to work best at 96, so it's possible that you'd end up with marginally better sound quality that way. But not much, if any. Maybe if you plan to archive the tracks to do another, higher quality version in a few years when you can mix at 96, then do it. Otherwise, probably a waste of time and disc space.