The only advice I'm arguing is the advice to "use 48khz because your quality sucks anyway". I've been TRYING to explain that less than optimal quality in part of the process doesn't somehow mean that sampling at a lower rate somehow makes sense, and that the opposite makes more sense-- Sample at 96khz to capture more information for postprocessing and for better downsampling. Unfortunately the "Nyquist says..." dogma is pretty hard to cut through. Try as I might, I can't convince you that downsampling 48khz->44.1khz is worse than 96khz->44.1khz because you're convinced that 48 and 44.1 are both lossless reproductions of real sound because "Nyquist says..."
My friend uses Final Cut, which I can't since I'm using Windows. I'm still deciding which video editing program to use, which I'm sure will have its own noise reduction setup.
BTW I ordered the Rode NT1-A condenser, supposed to be the "quietest studio mic in the world". I'll report back on the noise level with the DR-40