TASCAM US-366 Pre-amps any good?

I like Tascam, but I wouldn't record at 192.
This article helped me tremendously.
http://www.trustmeimascie...tter-and-when-it-isnt/

Because it is better hardware? 
 
I have the Tascam uh-7000 and it is a high-end unit, comparable to the Forte.  The US-366 is a lower-cost unit, like Focusrite's lower cost units.  These usually are made w/ cheaper components and plastic instead of metal, yada yada.  On the up side, more research costs are usually added into the higher end units - such as w/ the Tascam preamps HDDA.  As well as picking how the individual components react to one another - very time consuming and no guarantee that similar, cheaper components give react anything like the more expensive ones.
 
On the other hand, the difference in quality is small.  You may not notice it.  It takes a good system and training to distinguish many of the subtleties.  Yada Yada Yada.  However, do watch out for side-grading, where you don't actually improve your sound, just spend more money.  Some people will say this brand of lower-cost interfaces have better preamps, but I wonder exactly what they can do to a function that only cost a few dollars max to make it an upgrade.
 
So it is a personal choice for the home recordists.  One can make perfectly good recordings w/ the Tascam unit - for cheap.  Or spend 3 x as much for the Forté and not hear the difference until you use it for a while.  There is a difference, but whether it is a mountain or molehill is the same thing as recording at 48 or 196.  In fact, I'd say less.  I'll take the slight improvement in front end quality long before hoping that a higher sample rate will improve  poorer sound quality lesser hardware.  I'll take 44.1 through good analog, Alex.
 
There is a long thread on sample rates on the X forum - take a look.  But 44.1 was chosen by SONY because it hit the Nyquest rate and they could make the hardware cheaply for commercial use.  Lavry and others argued that the best sample rate is around 60.  I suppose 96 was chosen since it was good marketing and the manufactures could easily uprate their components to do double processing, rather than 64 (32 was a sample rate available on early video cameras but never caught on because you can hear the difference).
 
@