For doing a tutorial video cast, is there any reason to use 44.1 vs 48 kHz sampling rate?
I'm exporting out of Screenflow and these are the two options for sample rate.
The standard for sound-to-picture tends to be 48kHz.
The only real advantage I know of 44.1kHz over 48kHz is that it produces a smaller file size. However, when sound is put to picture, the file size is far more influenced by the video than the audio. I'm not much of an expert on exactly why 48kHz is favoured over 44.1 for video (it could be because 48kHz compliments 24 or 25fps mathematically, minimising sync issues), and I don't think there's any real audible difference, it's just common practise to sample at 48kHz when dealing with picture.
You need to think about your end goal and what platform your project is to be viewed/heard.
44.1 kHz is the exact sampling rate of a CD. Therefore, it's the go-to sampling rate when recording/editing/mixing music or anything else that is being created with the intent of being played back on a CD.
48 kHz was chosen as the standard digital audio sample rate for tv/film back in the late 70's/early 80's for two main reasons. It was chosen because of the way it behaves with the different standard frame rates, 23.98, 24 ,25, 29.97, and 30 fps. The amount of samples per frame was an important factor, as it could cause leap frames and sync drift. It was was also agreed that 48 kHz would produce the appropriate file size, as 50 and 60 kHz were also considered as options but they decided the storage required would be wasteful. We started using 98 and 192 kHz recordings when we wanted higher fidelity and the ability to do extreme processing and mangling of sounds because they are multiples of 48 and divide cleanly, without dropping samples, when down-converted (same reason for 88.2 kHz).