I just read a short description of Why is 96/24 better than 44.1/16? in an otherwise quite knowledgeably assembled FAQ. While it is true that "a sampling rate of 96kHz gives a better digital representation of the waveform and yields a usable audio bandwidth of about 48kHz" this does not explain why recording made at double the usual sample rates (of 44.1 kHz / 48 kHz) should sound better.

Just consider...
* What is the limit of your hearing, frequency-wise? * How many instruments have harmonic content above 20 kHz --that you really care to hear? * How many microphones record linearly --or at all-- above 20 kHz?
I recorded Gaita, an incredibly overtone-rich spanish bagpipe, optimized for open-air usage) twice. Once using a Blumlein-setup of two RoyerLabs SF-1 ribbon-microphones, with their characteristic, gentle high-frequency rolloff, and once using an AB-setup featuring two Earthworks QTC-1's (now called QTC40), practically flat from 4 to 40 kHz. Which do you think sounded more real, and which sounded more pleasant? ;-)

Well?

Listen to the Jata da Mahia for a sample of Gaita recorded with Blumlein-ribbons.

I believe it's more about the optimal SR the ADC was designed for, as well as the quality of the filters used, as all content above the Nyquist frequency has to be filtered out before the conversion.

Then again many audiophile are intrigued by the "24-96" label. If you are a true sonophile this may not be quite as much of an issue. Trust your ears!