Are you asking about down-sampling some existing 48 kHz recordings to 44.1 kHz? There could be reasons to do that, but I wouldn't do it unless it was necessary, e.g. if a bunch of your friends unearthed a trove of CD players, and wanted to throw a 1980s party and listen to your recordings that way.
As far as 44.1 vs. 48 kHz for an original recording is concerned, there shouldn't be enough sonic difference to be detectable by a human listener. If there is, the equipment (or your process of making the judgment) is suspect IMO. Once the sampling rate exceeds 2x the highest frequency being sampled, the only audible differences should be in the side effects of the anti-imaging and anti-aliasing filters. The whole decades-long saga over sampling rates is really about filtering, not sampling. In general there are tradeoffs between the frequency-domain and time-domain behavior of any filter (analog or digital). There are dynamic range and distortion considerations as well.
For digital filters, some important optimization constraints relax if the sampling frequency is raised. But the <10% difference between 44.1 and 48 kHz isn't enough to matter in that way. You'd need to go to (maybe) 60 or 64 kHz before you're totally "in the clear" for real-world program material. Thus we have 96 kHz as a professional standard--plus the usual assortment of people who think that no sampling rate is ever high enough, because they misunderstand sampling theory, i.e. they imagine that it becomes "closer to analog" the higher you raise the rate, which isn't how digital audio works.
All the potential sonic problems of filters become less if their design is less aggressive (fewer "poles"). Few live, acoustic signals have significant energy at 20 kHz or above, and those that do are rarely recorded close-up by consumers using microphones capable of conveying 20+ kHz signal components. So as a generality, there should be less need for aggressive filtering, and correspondingly less "need" for 96 kHz sampling in consumer recording equipment (i.e. to shove the filter problems brute-force up out of the audible range). For better or worse, though, manufacturers tend to design equipment for worst-case scenarios, and unfortunately, this aspect of recording equipment, though readily measurable, isn't usually described in spec sheets or on-line reviews.
--best regards
