DSatz, to be completely honest when I ran that test I did hear differences between several recordings. *However* I wish I had read that Lavry paper before I'd posted that here because it gave me pause after I did read it and my previous post can sound like I think what I heard was necessarily better. After I read the Lavry paper I remembered more of what happened. (And somewhere in the intervening years I let myself gloss over what I thought was a personal limitation.) My original intention was to state that I did hear a difference when I tested this, but didn't intend to imply what, in fact, I did hear.
I cannot say for sure what caused the differences I heard and I do have to say that I *liked* the 48 kHz recordings the best. There was a marked difference from the 96 kHz recordings -- and I *thought* I could hear a similar but ever so slight difference between 96 and 192. What I heard was a very quiet "brittle squeal" that started somewhere above 16 kHz and accompanied the lower-frequency recorded sounds. Also, the higher rate recordings sounded "less crisp yet edgier", if that makes some sense. I remember being disappointed... not just because the difference I heard was less pleasing but also because I was afraid that my supposed "better recordings" were not "making sense" to my ears.
For the specific questions: ONE: I don't know which was/were more accurate compared to the source. I didn't compare the data files. I wanted to know A) Could I hear a difference? and B) Did I like the difference? Since my answers were "Yes" and "No", that was enough for me to begin choosing lower sample rates. I didn't have the facility or resources to compare more 24-bit devices so I didn't investigate further. OTHER: I don't know if I heard a difference between sample rates. I did hear a difference between the playback of different recordings that used different sample rates and I wasn't speaking so precisely earlier in this thread. Mea culpa if anyone feels as if I've misled them.
For comparisons since then or now even, I haven't made any but would like to be able to and I might see if I can arrange something in the next few months. If I can even hear this fine stuff now -- I *am* 45 and have been noticing changes to my eyesight, etc lately -- I suspect that I'll be able to hear differences again with the low-end recorders I'm used to using and may even be able to hear "different differences" but I think I won't hear the same sorts of things with some professional equipment I have access to right now because now, after reading the Lavry paper and letting some of the ideas in it stew, I believe what I heard from the recordings at higher sample rates were artifacts produced by my good, but ultimately lower-quality equipment, but I can't say if it was the PMD-671 or the FA-101.
--
FWIW, The recordings were made with my Marantz PMD-671 (no mods) and a pair of Rode NT5 mics. It was running off of new batteries and recording 24 bit at 48, 96, and 192 kHz. I recorded some ambient noise from inside my office building -- in the middle of the night, probably on a Saturday night with some sound treatment and nearby control over the HVAC -- and I recorded some music that was played back and I recorded a bit of guitar strumming. I listened to the playback with an iMac using Soundtrack Pro and Sound Studio > Edirol FA-101 > M-Audio BX5a and Etymotic ER-4s. I think I also compared with the iMac's built-in DSP, but it made everything nearly indistinguishable and by that time I would have been listening intently for a couple of hours and shouldn't trust any judgements from that.