Your proposed method sounds reasonable, assuming that the library sounds and MIDI tracks are background and not "money" tracks in your new 96KHz project.

My usage of Cubase ceased almost 20 years ago, so I simply don't know whether the modern versions will allow you to export files from a project at a different sampling rate from that of the project. If they will, do they also deal with MIDI files, so that the transferred files will replay with the correct timing in a project at the higher sampling rates? If they will, it would be preferable to do that rather than generate .wav files which are then up-sampled.

I've done quite a bit of multiple rate work in the last few years, but generally use two computers and separate audio interfaces that run at different sampling rates with only analogue connections between them. What I have never had to do is change the implicit sampling rate associated with a raw MIDI file, so I haven't had the need to investigate how other DAWs handle this.

detlef, post: 454987, member: 30007 wrote: What are the downsides in upsampling the exported files

First, any recompilling done by the computer will risk of loosing quality. Will you be able to hear the difference probably not, specially at track level.
But why don't you export the midi tracks to midi files and then load the vsti in a new project in 96khz and import the midi files there?
This would be simple and effective unless you don't own the VSTi anymore. ;)

Yes it's possible to export files at any different rate.
Well to tell the truth, in some tracks the strings arrangment is quite central (think of Nick Cave dark-ballads).

pcrecord, post: 454989, member: 46460 wrote: But why don't you export the midi tracks to midi files and then load the vsti in a new project in 96khz and import the midi files there?

because the midi instruments are mixed already and some have eq, I don't want to restart from scratch.
But the main reason is that I want to get rid of the Kontakt instruments (namely Abbey Road drums) because it slow down greatly the pc.
I prepared already one song and the pc is much faster now, ready to record vocals and other stuff.

I can not hear any difference in the up-sampled files

A simpler solution:

Save a copy of your project. Open it.

Change sample rate in Project Settings.

Click the small snowflake on your Midi tracks to render them and save CPU time.

That should do it.

No one has debated the relevance of recording the vocal in 96khz instead of 44khz ??

pcrecord, post: 455026, member: 46460 wrote: No one has debated the relevance of recording the vocal in 96khz instead of 44khz ??

Go 4 it then

detlef, post: 455052, member: 30007 wrote: Go 4 it then

:ROFLMAO:
I do record, mix and master at 96khz. But many RO members are happy at 24bit 44khz. There have been debates and discussion on this mather over the year. I suggest you make a few searches. What I'm thinking about your case is that this is a lot of energy that should have been planned. If the main project is in 44, I would stick with it and wait for the next one to go at 96khz... But that's just me thinking doing music is better than fideling around converting and exporting tracks ..

Marco (pcrecord) has got it right. When dealing with higher sampling rates, make sure you understand your route through the recording and mixing stages, and have it planned from the start. There's little point in saying you want vocals and other main instruments tracked at 96KHz after up-sampling the library and other backing sources, and then when you've done all that say "OK, what do I do now to get this to a CD?"

You could study the threads we have had here on RO about the two-box process (tracking at 96KHz to box 1, followed by analogue mixing then 2-track capture in box 2 at 44.1KHz), or you could do it all at 96KHz and then take your chance with sample-rate conversion (SRC) at the back end for generation of CD masters. If you are aiming to send your 2-track mix to an external mastering house, then it's very likely they would take 96KHz mixes and use their own mastering gear to down-sample at the end of it, removing the need for you to worry about that aspect of the process.

In the end I will stick to 44KHz. It's not really guarantee there will be a perceived improvement using 96KHz.
What is sure is the files size will increase dramatically.
I will export the midi tracks to get rid of Kontakt instruments anyway, but will remain in the 44KHz domain.