Some people can hear a 5 microseconds difference, and that corresponds to the time difference between two samples at 192kHz. In theory, this high sampling rate may improve spatial imaging. Thus, it may take two ears to distinguish between a recording at 48kHz, and one at 192kHz.”
Very valid point, but I wonder if they could hear that difference through a Mono PA and in an echoic soundspace.
A few very reputable recording engineers say that they can hear a difference between 96K and 192K.
A few say they cannot hear the difference, even in studio conditions.
As time and media permit it, 192Khz will no doubt become the standard, but I think that it is premature.
24/96 is very impressive, especially when recording in live venues. As in most technology, the gains diminish toward the extremes. The media requirements double or quadruple, but the gain is only for some occasional transient information.
The typical D/A converter could eat that information for lunch without burping and we'd never even know it was there.
Have you seen the new Dual-Media disks ? DVD-A on one side and SACD on the other. King Solomon's Solution
The outlook is looking better. More Hi-Res audio will mean more options for us.