24/96 compared to 24/192

No difference, between 24/96 and 24/192, 44.1 kHz is enough to reproduce all the frequencies the human ear can hear, but filtering at 44.1 kHz is somewhat tricky since it's so close to audible frequencies, so a higher sampling rate would push the filtering well out of audible range, that's why 60/70 kHz wold be rather optimal for audio. Legacy formats left 96 kHz as a reference, but it's already overkill, 192 kHz is even more useless.

So don't worry about it.

192khz is actually detrimental, as it yields worse results on playback due to the lower oversampling ratios the DAC has to use. Don't take it from me, take it from Benchmark Audio and Lavry Engineering.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126:96khz-vs-192khz&catid=57:reader-feedback&Itemid=24

I know from my own extensive listening tests that 24/96 seems to be the optimum, however there are a few respected individuals who believe 24/192 to be the ultimate in terms of transparency - at least compared to lower sample rates. For my own part, I have always found 192 khz to be worse, both with my own recordings and commercially available downloads that were originally recorded as 192 khz PCM (I don't seem to notice this issue with DSD recordings converted to 88.2 khz for downloadable distribution).

That said, since I have never had the opportunity to listen to high resolution on state of the art equipment with high precision clocks, etc, I don't claim to have a truly informed opinion - just one based on experience with every day consumer level gear and whatever high resolution downloads are available.

24/96 is all you need for playback and all you should use as a max.  If you are recording, 192 may have advantages.