if your software doesn't support 192, i don't think you can use it period. usually, when recording, you'll have to set the bitrate/sampling rate in the sequencer before you record. UNLESS you record from another software sequencer (not cubase or wuteav) but in that case, you'll have to downsample before you can use it in your main sequencer. i'm not positive of this, but i'm pretty sure.

from wut i kno, only protools TDM or HD (or both, can't remember) runs 192. for PC, maybe cubase nuendo supports 192, i'm not sure. however, personally, i think if you are only recording mixes, producing from synths/vsts and wut not, 192 is not necessary. 192 is mostly only needed if you are recording vocals and/or classical type stuff. in either case, you need a pretty damn good mic or else you're just gonna pickup a lot of random noise and other unwanted stuff. and i'm talking high end neumann/schoeps mics that run well into 4 figures.

personally, i don't think 192 is necessary unless you are doing professional recordings. 24/96 is already a pretty good standard.

___________________

First off, I'm not sure of this stuff myself, but there are a bunch of things that popped into my head when reading this thread.

The sampling rate, expressed in Hz or kHz, is the number of samples per second. For an audio CD, the sampling rate is 44,100Hz or 44.1kHz. A DAT has 98kHz and DVD has 192kHz sound. When you make an MP3, even though you can invoke a higher bit rate (sampling rate), the compression that is used will start to degrade your original sampling quality of 44.1kHz depending on what bit rate you choose. Think of it as a scale from 99% to 10% (whatever the actual numbers work out to). At 99% is a 320kbps MP3 with almost all of the quality that was obtained in the original 44.1kHz recording and at 24kbps you may have retained only 10% of the quality of your original 44.1kHz recording.

Now, I hope that you're thinking that I really haven't even touched on the topic at hand. But my point to the above is that don't think that because you are recording in wave and then converting to MP3, that you are actually making a sampling rate of 320kbps/320kHz. (kbps stands for kilobits per second, and kHz stands for kilohertz. A Hertz is 1 cycle per second, so if that cycle is known as a bit, then 1kHz = 1kbps.) You can never attain a higher sampling rate than the original 44.1kHz that you recorded in.

Now, before you start figuring which is better, a 96kHz card versus a 192kHz card, obviously the 192kHz card is. But the question to ask is, when the best capable source you can record it to (I'm assuming the best is a wave file that you record onto a CD via a burner--ie no vinyl cutter), do you NEED anything better than 44.1kHz, which is the limiation of the audio medium itself!? No! So, while a 192kHz card IS better, you will never be able to take advantage of it because you can't listen to an audio CD recorded in anything other than 44.1kHz. And if this is the best technology that a person can reasonably afford, then unless you either can afford it, or have a vinyl cutter (ie, can afford it ), then it is not worth you money, if the price goes up with the bitrate of the card.

There is software out there that can record at a higher bitrate than 44.1kHz, but most of that software can only go up to 49.something kHz. Make sure that you have software that can handle that type of bitrate. Most of that software costs thousands of dollars because it is a professional recording studio product.

So basically, you have to ask yourself, is the price difference very little so that it makes sense that I get the better card just incase, or does the price difference mean something to your wallet!

EDIT: You also have to ask yourself, is it worth it to get a digital I/O? Does your mixer have a digital I/O? Probaly not unless you have an Tascam X9 or another mixer that has a digital out. And always remember the quality of your original source. If you are using CDs or MP3s, then the BEST you can ever attain is 44.1kHz. You can get better with vinyl, but that is only if there is no other limiting factor in the path between the vinyl's groove and the harddrive! (ie needle, TT, mixer, amp and soundcard.)

___________________
When you dance, the DJ takes you on a journey, but he or she is usually not the focus of your experience at a club or festival or wherever you hear the music. Dancing is. Music is.

I really dont think 192khz is necessary. Most programs dont even operate that high, and if by chance they did, you'd be seriously lagging down your computer with the files! let me just say that I have a p4 1.7ghz 1028 ram and when I run at 96khz with 30 tracks of midi and audio in reason it will stop playing and get all distorted sounding. to run at 192 you'll need more than twice the system resources! I dont know how any modern computer can even run that stabely!

These huge file sizes are definately not a good thing to work with. I cant even listen to the live preview in Izotope Ozone when processing 96khz music just because it is too resource heavy.

Another thing, most record labels accept masters as CD audio, which is 16/44. Even if you run at 96khz, you will have to resample it back down to 16/44 before you burn the CD anyways.

If you want to run the audio at 192khz I can almost guarantee that you will not notice much of a sound difference at all! Most speakers wont be able to pick up the difference. Maybe if you had a pair of $3,000 monitors you might notice a slight difference.

So my final opinion:
Go with the 24/96 M-Audio cards.

good points raised by chrono and flesch. one thing to point out tho, when recording at 192 (and yes there are machines capable of it. we run it at our school on with a G4 dual processor when doing classical recordings) there is an audible difference EVEN when you master down to CD. Take for example, two recordings of the same thing: one in 192, one in 44.1. when both are mastered to CD, there is information in the 192 recording that wasn't picked up by the 44.1. downsampling doesn't necessarily mean EVERYTHING above 44.1 (essentially information above the 22 kHz range) will get lost. although people argue that we can't hear anything above the 18-22 kHz range, but basic harmonic knowledge tells you that information above the 22kHz range still affects the pitch/timbre of the sounds under the 22kHz range. Henceforth, a 192 recording is still more accurate and will matter when downsampled to 44.1.

now, i remind you, this is all nitpicking, I for one, am perfectly happy with 96 or even 44.1 recordings.

one last thing, again, 192 recordings are mostly only important when doing live recordings, if you are recording a full dj mix from a line-in, it shouldn't matter. if you are producing in the digital domain with no analog instruments, it shouldn't matter. be happy w/ 24/96. most professional studios only run at 24/96 anyway.

___________________