I'm at 24/96 thru a Motu 828mkII. At first I was going all 24/44.1 just because i thought "so it samples 96khz? Bfd." and wanted to save drive space (my first couple weeks recording with something newer than a SoundBlaster Live - cut me some slack), but i read a piece that explained a bit about sampling technologies, how it works, and why higher numbers are better.
When you're recording, you want to get as close to an analogue waveform as possible (to the digital equivalent of tape, or even vinyl) to capture the whole waveform in its entirety, which is something the higher sampling rates help achieve, even if it's only a step up to 88.2, or from 96 to 192, whatever. They're not perfect, and theres still very very subtle overtones, harmonics, frequencies, etc that may get lost, but i think even the sharpest human ear would have trouble picking it up at 192... From there, yes, it gets dithered down to 16/44.1 on a CD press, but someone posted an example about working with hi-rez graphics which really hits the nail on the head.
I sat down and did some comparisons with my trace elliot preamp pedal (love that thing), and my 12 string acoustic guitar, recording at 44.1 and at 96. I'll be damned if at 96k, with no other changes made, the sound was fuller, picking up the lower ends with more vibrancy.
Taking a photochopped image down from 2400dpi to 600dpi for a print job in my mind is always more preferable than working only in 600dpi. It translates the same to audio work.
And for a true sample comparison, don't post a sample in MP3s. Put something up that got Flac'd, or some other lossless standard. Artifacts *will* be present in mp3s, one way or the other.
All of this, is of course, only my humble findings on the long road to the middle, and is written with no implication of accurateness, or service contracts. Bumper to bumper warranty not included. Mileage will vary. Be kind, rewind.
Please drink responsibly.