IMNSHO, a 192 converter is going to be better, newer technoligy has to redefine the lower rates. Having said that, I sure wish my isa 828s had better chips - but it sounds really, really, good in all rates. And if the bear browns were not the small spider solder chips, I'd replace them with the ones Bystrom uses on his compressors and line amps. I know because I helped Craig RD the chips, wish I knew the brand but they smoked the bear browns as far as clarty and depth.

There will always be a better place to go with audio and I'm looking foreward to 384

Most everything I do is 24/44.1.
It's not the availability of higher sample rates in the 192 that give it the edge, it's the over all quality of the converters and analog circuitry.
It's my understanding that a 96 is an 888 with a face lift and a few improvements while the 192 is/was a new design from the ground up.

Not to mention the 192K's clock. I don't use it but I'm sure it's an improvement over the DA7s.

I have a great system with MOTU HD192s and Sonar. I just want to expand my PT i/o. I would prefer the 192i/o, but at this point, the majority of my PT work is on my 002R, and no one has complained about poor sound there. Au contraire, So a 96i/o would probably work, but I'd prefer the 192 or lynx.

I found a system with a 192i/0, HD2 Accel cards, and a G5 dual 2.5 with v.7.4 for $4500, so it's on the way....and my 002R is on the way out.....

I am tempted to put the cards in my PC, which is a dual 3.2, and which has a ton of software on there that I use. We'll see.

Congrats!

BTW, I do all tracking and mixing in 88.2/24 (more detail). Only at the very end I drop it down to 44.1/16.