Patanjali, as long as there is no hard evidence to backup any claims of higher sample rates being useful, everybody should refuse to waste 50% or more of his CPU power just for some unsubstantiated hearsay and esoteric waffle, seriously.
I need to see significant differences in perception, under strictly controlled circumstances (double blinding, open source and heavily examined LPF design, etc…) between 44,1 kHz and 192 kHz recordings to even CONSIDER those claims being anything more than esoteric mumbo-jumbo.
If it would not cost CPU cycles (and memory, but this is a non-issue nowadays), I wouldn’t be such a nitpicker, but people pay through their noses for moar CPU power (and have to utilize awkward metatechniques such as “freezing”, which is a horrible concept in itself) for exactly NOTHING.
Please understand that I really appreciate your strife for better, more beautiful and clearer sound. I’m all for that and I try to do the same (mostly by learning, but also by getting good equipment, such as the SPL Gainstation 1 I just ordered) - but some efforts are not only futile but even counterproductive.
Believe me, I really like high end equipment (SPL stuff) and I use stuff like Kramer Master Tape and the Slate VBC and all that, which add nuances at most - but I would never even consider going > 48 kHz (and I do 48 kHz only because KORG forces me to).
Science simply doesn’t back any higher sample rates (except in select mathematical processes, this is why some plugins perform upsampling, which is good and necessary and great, but this is about mathematics only, algebraic necessities and all that).
And, here…