It's not me saying this, but someone who's apparently an expert in this field. Unfortunately, I've never heard one of these high rate recordings, let alone compared it to the equivalent 16/44.1 one to say first hand, but I'm not convinced I agree with him. This is all explained in great detail below and he makes a semi-convincing argument for the 192KHz sampling rate. One point I definitely disagree with him is that using a longer word depth ie 24 bits instead of 16 bits only increases dynamic range and not the resolution or "fineness" of the audio. Imagine recording a 1KHz tone at the full dynamic range of both systems ie the full 16 bits or the full 24 bits - full volume. The second one will have 256 times the resolution (16777216 levels rather than 65536) of the first (resolution doubles with every extra bit). Do the same with music - use the full range of bits - and you have a much clearer and more detailed sound. Apparently, the fact that dither is used makes the increased quantization noise of lower bit depth recordings effectively "go away" since it's converted into uncorrelated noise, which we percieve as white noise. Also, the noise can be pushed to other parts of the audio band to make it less noticeable. Thus, 16 bits is as good as 24 bits according to this argument. Oh really? So, if you applied dither to a very low resolution 4 bit recording (just 16 amplitude levels) it would sound just as good as the 16 bit recording with 65536 levels, but with a lot more noise? No, of course it wouldn't. It would sound very rough indeed, highly aliased and unpleasant, much like those excessively compressed sound recordings one can find on the internet, usually accompanying very poor quality video. And a big irony of recording at a higher resolution? A "big" improvement in sound occurs with the most dynamic range compressed "engineered to sound louder" rubbish, manufactured bands pop music recordings out there. Since the dynamic range is so limited, there are fewer amplitude bits used to encode it, so increasing the resolution gives you more accurate reproduction. However, garbage in fine detail is still garbage, lol. Read the rest at http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html This is still an interesting and informative article nonetheless.