I've seen a lot of talk about why all of you don't like samplerates higher than 96k. Admitedly I deal almost solely with sound synthesis and DSP, and do not record very many sounds on microphones(for which high samplerates do make less sense due to physical limitations of the microphone). Here is a test to prove my point. You can use other software, but this is what I use. Open an instance of Reaktor 4 (or any softsynth) in your sequencer, and open a spectral analyzer on the master channel. In reaktor 4 I build a very simple sine wave generator. First, set the project samplerate and Reaktors internal samplerate to 24khz. Triggering a note somewhere in the 75-100hz range yields a harmonic at that frequency with no overtones, as can be seen on the spec analyzer. It sounds like a pure sinewave, but a little muddy. Now up the samplerate to 48k and it does indeed sound a little cleaner, although the spec analyzer still shows nothing above the fundamental frequency. Now change the samplerate to 96k, and yet again, it sounds cleaner without gaining any frequency response above the fundamental which is still far below the nyquist and the theoretical maximum. Next, I change the reaktor internal samplerate to 192k, while leaving the project and soundcard rates at 96k. Reaktor generates a sine wave at 192k and then resamples by adding every 2 samples together, and dividing by two. The result is slightly more accurate, and even though we are still listening at 96k, it does sound a little cleaner. Finally, change reaktors internal samplerate to 384khz, and do the same. At this point, the difference is becomeing very slight, as we are approaching the point of diminishing returns.
Test 2:
Generate an oscillogram of a 10khz sine wave at 24, 48, 96 and 192khz samplerates, and examine them with your wave editor zoomed all the way in(showing individual samples in sample by sample steps). At 24khz, each oscillation occurs over a time period of about 2 samples. It is indistinguishable from a triangle or saw wave, and is essentially random noise. At 48khz, each oscillation is about 5 samples long, but is still lacking definition, and is still not a very accurate mathematical depiction of a sine wave. Next, 96khz is a significant improvement, and 192 is even more so. This illustrates that higher samplerates improve not just frequency response but high end definition as well. This is especially important when you do a lot of DSP and digital mixing, which will muddy up high freqs in a hurry at lower samplerates. Individual sounds sound fine recorded at lower samplerates(like 48khz), and can still sound fine if mixed via analog equipment, but when you're mixing digitally, a lot of definition is gained in the 5-10khz range by using higher samplerates, even if you just resample sounds recorded at a lower rate to the higher rate before mixing. This is just my 2 cents on the issue, from my experience, with the utmost respect to the work and experience of people far more distinguished than myself, like Dan Lavry and Bob Katz and many others.