(Yes, I could mix directly from tape since its synced, but there are some things I like in the DAW like automation).
It's OK....you don't have to apologize/explain just 'cuz it's the Analog forum.
I very occasionally do the mix right off my 24-track deck these days...but it requires a lot more disciple and perfection during tracking to do that. If I was recording bands with lots of
tracks going down at once....it would be different...but as a solo musician, and having to some days slog through tracking sessions when I'm doing many, many parts....I just don't need to spend more time worrying about every, little note, click, string squeal....so dumping to DAW, I can just run with it and then edit out the little quirks with ease....otherwise, it would take a lot of mixing automation to mute those things out when going off the tape.
Anyway...
I do the same hybrid thing....track to tape, dump to DAW for edits/comps, and while I don't mix in the DAW, I do mix out from the DAW through a console...so it's all good.
I use to go at 88.2 into the DAW for the track dump, but for a few reasons, I switched to 48...mainly to do with my sync setup, because I now use the DAW as Master, where before I use to use the tape deck as Master.....and in my current configuration, with a Timeline MicroLynx as my central sync box...the 48kHz rate was the "most compatible" way to go.
While I could easily enough use a different approach, and still transfer at 88.2 or 96 or whatever, I prefer using the MicroLynx and my current sync configuration with DAW as Master, because it's the most accurate and most solid....of which the details of why that is the best way to sync, I don't wish to get into now (it's been discussed in depth here already).
So to get back to "should you" go with 96...?
If it pleases you and you really can hear the difference...and your DAW has the HD space and can work smoothly with files at that higher sampling rate....sure, go for it.
That said...in the past year or so since I switched from 88.2 to 48....I can't say that I've ever lost any sleep over it, and I do get the benefit of much more HD space and throughput.....so I'm OK with it.
Before making the switch....I did some objective comparisons of files at 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96....and in their "raw" transfered state....yes, there was ever so slightly an improvement between the 48 and 88.2/96 rates...and a bit more noticeable when comparing to the 44.1......but it was very, very minor. Sorta like a giving your sunglasses a quick wipe just to remove that very light haze. It wasn't
earth-shattering or something that you really noticed.....and for me, taking into account some of the other configuration points I mentioned, and also having to do with things like sample libraries that are all at 48....it just didn't warrant all the back-n-forth I would be doing if I was going to keep using the 88.2 or 96.
Now....if you run tons of pugs (which I generally don't)....there may be, for certain types of plugs like reverbs (I use outboard hardware through my console when I mix) that could(?) benefit from the higher rates both singularly and when stacked, plug after plug.
I would suggest you try it both ways and come to your own conclusion if the higher rates are really adding a lot of bang-for-buck to your mixes and your process. The types of music you do may also be key.....like if it was classical or jazz or very ambient stuff...mmmmm, you might want that little bit of extra higher sampling "dust" sprinkled on your mixes.....but I wouldn't sweat it for Rock/Pop and more robust styles and mixes....48 works well enough, and has more dynamic range and greater frequency response than the tape you're transfering from...so it's going capture everthing for you.