I'm new here, so I don't know if you have already discussed about this before... probably you have! I'm from Argentina so excuse my awkard english.

My question is: What are the real advanteges of recording with a sample rate of 192KHz?
One thing I know is that the anti-aliasing filter is at 96KHz and no more at 22.5KHz, thus, no phase distortion is produced so close to the audible frequencies. Apart from that, I've heard some people say that sound sources also produce frequencies above 20KHz that, although we can't hear them, they produce a sort of subliminal effect that conditions the way we percive sound. (I don't know how much of this is true. I wonder if, phisically, it is possible for our ears to percive sounds above 20KHz.)
Finally, it is for sure true that the more samples you have, the more accurate the further prossesing will be. (this is the only really important fact I can think of)
So, If at the end of the project, every single, beautiful, accurate sample is reduced to a 44.1/16bits signal with the filter at 22.5KHz, is it worth recording at 192K, and try to capture this subliminal frequencies and keep the filter away from the audible spectrum if at the end you have to filter everything at 22.5K?
Is it worth only for the more samples during the whole project until the master?
Do you consider that it is worth tracking at 192K if you will convert them to 48K BEFORE any prossesing? Could it be true that if the final material will be at 44.1K, you are not really listening the real thing that will be at the stores and, thus, you mix with a reference that will not be the same at the end?
I think that if you are going to work with your tracks at 44.1 or 48, it is better to capture the analog signal with this sample rate, instead of recording at 192K and then resample the digital signal at 48K(if no prossesing is done between the stages).

What do you think?