If the plugs are in 44.1 use 44.1. There is no reason for you (as you do not record anyway) to set Live to 88.2. If you would record I could understand it somewhat, but even then 88 kHz is IMHO absurd. If you want a higher resolution 48 kHz is just fine. I keep my work at 48, and when it's time to make a cd it converts it anyway down to 44.1.
The sampling rate derived from the "old days" when disk space was scarce. CD's would only have half the amount of audio if they were in 88.2. It became a standard with the thought that the human ear can not (at a certain age) hear frequencies higher than 22kHz. Doubling the kHz to 44.1 gave it a 'headroom' of double that.
It just means that at 44.1kHz there are 44,100 samples per second. A frequency of 22 kHz gets (theoretically) gets then 2 x 16 bit samples.
Ahhh man, just look it up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz
Edit: Whatever sample rate you use, keep them the same through your workflow/system. e.g. :Set your interface to the same rate.
Almost all plugins have oversampling and I don't believe a plugin can be at a set sampling rate, it is based on your daw. So if you're DAW is set to 88.2 you're plugin should be as well, otherwise I fail to see the point of oversampling. And I did "look it up", I mentioned a few articles that go far more in depth than what you just "explained". Inaudible frequencies matter more than you seem to understand. Not to mention by your logic 48KhZ has no place, and yet everybody seems fine with it because its a standard even though it trumps the logic of not using anything past 44.1kHz.
@doghouse Your second half of your post explains why the first half doesn't make sense. If you have a bad setup and bad ears, then "what sounds good" has no place. I'm trying to understand from an objective point of view what is better. Why learn anything if "using your ears" makes you Mozart. And as I said I have no interest in CD which is why I don't want to delve into "16bit 44.1khz is fine".
@3Dot My CPU is 4.5ghz quad core and my audio interface can handle 88.2 so the problem for me is just trying to understand the objective difference between the two.
@NokatusThank you for the article. The only thing that makes me question his credibility is I don't understand why hes using 96k instead of 88.2kHz though because that should be more ineffective. It is farther from Lavry's ideal and also not "clean math" for people who upsample/downsample to 44.1kHz before or after. He is also implying to go as high as your computer can handle, which is ludicrous because it's been proven by everybody that 192kHz is not only useless but detrimental to your audio quality because there is always a tradeoff.
Thanks for the replies so far guys.