I'm currently collecting albums at 24/96 and when I see a 24/192 available, I obtain it if it's something I consider essential. Rarely finding those albums in 192, though. When listening, I honestly can't tell the difference.
On my laptop, I have 96 and 192 khz albums, and have them converted to mp3 320 as well. I can tell the difference between the mp3 and the flac files, meaning 24 and 16 bit, but only on the more acoustic, airy tracks - basically jazz or classical, where the instruments are all non-electric (analog) and also on tracks that have a lot of digital effects added (such as Steely Dan or Doobie Brothers tracks).
For the average listener, even with a portable headphone amp and a good set of earphone monitors or full-sized open or sealed headphones, they can barely tell the difference between the 16-bit mp3 and the 24-bit flac counterparts. When they make a choice, I have a feeling they're guessing from gut feelings.
I do have a few compeers who play acoustic guitars and have a lot of experience in studio recording sessions, who can tell, every single time, which track is an mp3 and which is the 24-bit lossless version. But they can't tell if it's 88, 96 or 192khz. Personally I'm in the same category. I can discern 16 and 24 bit, but not 88, 96 or 192 khz.
My opinion as a music collector is, always obtain 24-bit audio when possible. Where price is concerned, don't pay extra for 96 or 192khz over 88khz.
Just the opinions of an audio collector