Hello, Zach, and others,
I want to put my insight on this.
Sounds heard in nature may be in various ranges, even above 20 kHz, and for instance, dogs and cats are able to sense ultrasound, also dolphins and whales, possibly certain species of frogs, certainly bats, and insects like crickets. On Wikipedia, there is an interesting text... this: "Under ideal laboratory conditions, humans can hear sound as low as 12 Hz and as high as 28 kHz, ..." Source: Harry F. Olson - Music, physics and engineering. And I believe it is possible for many people. However, the limit is considered usually 20 kHz, for some reason.
In my opinion, people are often careless about their hearing. Besides, we can be exposed to loud sounds and noises of unnatural character, like of electronic devices, many of musical instruments, among others a cymbal, which can be very dangerous for hearing, or of vehicle's brakes... Not much is being said by doctors about this, and it often isn't taught to children, whose are known to be able to perceive frequencies above 20 kHz normally... , at least I think so. Common suggestion is to avoid loud sounds. But this is very vague, in my opinion. It is a good advice, but it isn't any descriptive. And it can be suggested with this simplification even by doctors. In my view, it is important to know which sounds, knowing how to determine what is loud, where we can expect loud and dangerous sound, and knowing and understanding how our hearing can be affected. Here's an example: In front of a stage are put speakers - loudspeakers, and people are allowed to get close to it. A question. Is it a good idea standing close to it? Of course it isn't. It's a very bad idea, yet it is possible commonly... or used to be. Someone may create an assumption, that they know how to do it, and that it's safe, but that's wrong. The sound technician commonly wants to make it to be heard loudly... and they don't care any much about how damaging it can be standing near to the speaker. They are usually quite far away from them anyway. At least that's my impression. It also matters how they are placed, but it would be about something else.
Now let's get more to the sampling and to labels as "high-end", "audiophile", "high-res" and such things... In my opinion, there is a lot of misconception. Certain products can be labeled as that, among others because of usage of expensive material or components, and a lot of people may assume, that having an equipment, that is very expensive, would mean achieving a very better sound. And this is false, in my opinion. Of course, a good quality equipment may cost something, but it usually needs to suit well to other equipment, and in my view it is quite nonsense paying too much, mainly because of these reasons:
1) Mastering of records often has various faults and problems, like noise in the high frequency, elevated high frequency sound, overpowering bass, subsonic hum, too loud tones, and others.
2) A recorded music is commonly processed by mixing technician, who may use VST plugins that alter sound in a negative way, although they may not realize it. Even tools presented as high-quality standard may have various bugs or cause certain problems, so using a well selected and tested components should be a requirement.
Note: Commonly they are called mixing engineers.
3) Another reason is overuse, and standardization of a 440 Hz tuning.
If you consider these things, having a very expensive equipment to achieve, let's say, for example, of a 0,0001 % cleaner transmission seems a little unneeded. It’s kind of like trying to prettify and perfectize presentation of a reproduction, which is imperfect. Of course, it is a common interest of those technicians to make a record sound good, but it often isn’t so accurate representation of played music, because of the processing. By this I don’t mean like the most realistic or unaltered one, but rather fine-tuned. Besides, they seem to rely very much on their hearing, and hearing among people varies, even if just slightly, but it commonly does. In addition to this, there is the tuning issue, which can certainly be one of the main reasons, I believe.
A lot of things in the segment of "high-end" or "audiophile" definitely makes sense, but the way I see it, there is also a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of fantasizing. Well, music experience can be fantastic, and in my opinion there is a reason to have a very good quality of reproduction, but in a way that makes sense, possibly with understanding of these and other things related to sound.
And there are many of factors affecting sound, like room acoustics... , but it's perhaps not needed for me to write about it in this reply.
By the way, I don't understand some of those studio rooms I saw on the internet with possibly covered or lacking windows. There needs to be fresh air. Hopefully they have a good ventilation. Well, that's an off-topic.
There are exceptions regarding released music, and therefore, also well processed albums... , but, a few.
Now to the sampling.
You mentioned 192 kHz. This is a very high sampling rate, therefore, very detailed. And among characteristic things of it, such as a lower noise floor, there is also a possibility for ultrasound to be reproduced, or recorded.
Now, considering the problems I mentioned with mastering... Do you know, if your music file has correctly recorded and processed ultrasound? You may ask, what does this mean? In my opinion it means having a very little of the ultrasound content, which are probably high-order aliquots and noise, making a fuller spectrum, but being still safe for listening. Another question is... do you have speakers, which are able to reproduce these frequencies correctly, without any much of distortion? Tweeters are commonly able to reproduce ultrasound, but depending on type, they can reproduce them differently, and most likely with some distortion in the higher range. There are more things to consider regarding this though.
Also, I think it's good to mention bitrate as one of the important factors determining quality. Though there are also other things, like jitter.
Now about the perception.
It's possible that listening properly mastered music with correct sound system, while using 192 kHz sample rate would make some difference, depending on your ability to sense these frequencies. I believe, that while we may possibly not hear these frequencies as well as some of the animals I mentioned, there are people who may hear them, or at least sense them in some way. But it's important that there isn't much of them - of those frequencies, and that they should be much quieter, due to their potential harmful effect on us. Ultrasound is also used for cleaning metals, by the way. And they can be produced also by some musical instruments. However, not every instrument is properly made, in my opinion, and some can produce too much of these frequencies, or too loud higher frequencies below these. By the way, in certain cases, overtones can be a disturbing element. For instance, if a string on a guitar partially touches the fret, causing a buzz.
If you mean resampling using 192 kHz, then it matters on how good quality resampling it is. But there are things to consider... like aliasing artifacts in the ultrasound, so the best would be checking what exactly goes into your speakers than just trusting your equipment, even if it’s labeled as high-end. However, I’m quite unsure of a proper method for checking this. Anyway, I think that resampling should be rather avoided.
So, as you can see, there are quite many of risks and problems related to it, and it makes it kind of a big topic. It also relates to many things. If those many things are done ideally, the effect might be a better feel when using higher sample rates, if it’s a good music, and if the source file is of a higher sample rate... etc., but it’s kind of a vague claim of mine, because it isn’t any descriptive. : )
Hopefully my insight helps. If you want to discuss it more, you can write me an e-mail.