Assuming that the sample sets have been created properly in the first place (with an anti-aliasing filter applied at an appropriate frequency for their sample rate, allowing sufficient headroom for real-time pitch-shifting for tremulants, etc.), the only (very slight) benefits that you might potentially get from using higher sample-rate samples currently would be that:
1. The anti-aliasing filter(s) (applied during sample creation and possibly also by the audio interface) might possibly cause less disturbance (phase changes, frequency response ripple, etc.) on frequencies that are actually within the audible range (i.e. towards the upper end of 20 kHz). However, sufficiently high-quality audio editing software (anti-aliasing filters) used correctly during sample set creation, together with a sufficiently high-quality audio interface for reproduction, should avoid those issues anyway.
2. Real-time interpolation distortions would be a bit less at higher sample rates. We plan to add options for higher-order real-time interpolations in the future anyway, which would give people the choice of sacrificing polyphony (quite a lot of polyphony) for lower distortions if they preferred it.
Hence (provided that the samples were created properly, and that you're using a high-quality audio interface), there might be a small potential benefit (in terms of lower distortions) to 96 kHz (at the expense of a quite a lot of polyphony), although in the longer-term additional options within Hauptwerk should largely eliminate that sample rate benefit (but still at the expense of quite a lot of polyphony, if lower distortion is desired).
1. The anti-aliasing filter(s) (applied during sample creation and possibly also by the audio interface) might possibly cause less disturbance (phase changes, frequency response ripple, etc.) on frequencies that are actually within the audible range (i.e. towards the upper end of 20 kHz). However, sufficiently high-quality audio editing software (anti-aliasing filters) used correctly during sample set creation, together with a sufficiently high-quality audio interface for reproduction, should avoid those issues anyway.
2. Real-time interpolation distortions would be a bit less at higher sample rates. We plan to add options for higher-order real-time interpolations in the future anyway, which would give people the choice of sacrificing polyphony (quite a lot of polyphony) for lower distortions if they preferred it.
Hence (provided that the samples were created properly, and that you're using a high-quality audio interface), there might be a small potential benefit (in terms of lower distortions) to 96 kHz (at the expense of a quite a lot of polyphony), although in the longer-term additional options within Hauptwerk should largely eliminate that sample rate benefit (but still at the expense of quite a lot of polyphony, if lower distortion is desired).
Best regards, Martin.
Hauptwerk software designer/developer, Milan Digital Audio.
Hauptwerk software designer/developer, Milan Digital Audio.