>>1632521No there's really no reason to record at lower sample rates just to save data. But, most recording and playback equipment doesn't accurately represent ultrasonic frequencies anyway, even if we do perceive them in some subliminal way. There's really no reason to avoid high sample rates but in blind testing nobody can hear the difference. Plus if you end up using poor algorithms to convert to lower sample rates later, the the sound quality could be worse than if you just recorded at the lower sample rate to begin with, with good AD converters. There's really little argument for or against it, unless you're recording bats and other ultrasonic thingoes
