THIS is an endless debate, yes. However, again, the OP's "question" seemed based on the impression that sampling rate=audible frequency. We don't need to get nearly so technical to say that no, that is not the case.

Yeah people,cats can hear more than 70khz, we humans don't, and the classic devices for register ultrasounds(lets say under water) is called SONAR...other one the machine doctors uses in your pregnant woman baby bump...
But I don't discourage you batman!!!,If your really wanna record those frequencies anyway ,set your sequencer to 192 khz, waste computer resources ,and buy a modern stuff like this one:
 
http://www.ultrasoundgate.com
 
At least they use ultrasound microphones, for hearing bugs and bats:

Ultrasound Microphones

• Externally polarized condenser microphone (10...250 KHz): CM16/CMPA
• Externally polarized condenser microphone (10...150 kHz): Polaroid/CMPA
• Prepolarized electret microphone (10...120 kHz): Knowles FG
• Prepolarized electret microphone (10...120 kHz): Knowles FG omnidirectional
• Prepolarized electret microphone (10...110 kHz): Knowles SPM
• Prepolarized electret microphone (10...150 kHz): Electret EP3

 
 And obviously, I think they finally use an under-sampling mechanism! , else, you not gonna hear what is recorded, you're human.

Ok, this one make me laugh, lest talk now about the frequency response of your monitor system, the frequencies that you're suppose to actually hearing no matter the recorded material, for example:
 
Yamaha HS5 : 54Hz-30kHz 
KRK RP5G2 Rokit G2 :  53Hz - 20kHz (+/- 2 dB)
Adam Audio A7X($1,498.00!!!!)  : 42 Hz - 50 kHz
So yeah, in cases like this,none of those speakers are giving you 96khz, so...is just not  a myth, is a LIE.

Sanderxpander
THIS is an endless debate, yes. However, again, the OP's "question" seemed based on the impression that sampling rate=audible frequency. We don't need to get nearly so technical to say that no, that is not the case.

No, I'm not assuming  sampling rate=audible frequency, everybody knows that according to math and because the Nyquist theorem  they have a t least to DOUBLE the sampling rate to correct register the human audible frequencies.

When posting in a public forum it's a good idea to make sure of your facts. For whatever reason some folks just don't seem to able to explain themselves very well.

The following expression springs to mind;

"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and confirm it"

mudgel
When posting in a public forum it's a good idea to make sure of your facts. For whatever reason some folks just don't seem to able to explain themselves very well.

The following expression springs to mind;

"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and confirm it"

Don't know exactly what you mean, I know this is an sensitive topic and I don't wanted to be overwhelming or act like a fool.Just that, in the "world that I used to know"  there was some laws and rational guidelines...if for any reason " angels and demons" twist our understanding...well, maybe alternate realities....and yeah, is good to remain humble.. that's why I really wonder if I'm crazy...and an ET is not possessing me with weird ideas...

bitflipper
I was going to give a long, detailed, annotated and cross-referenced response to the OP, but after some consideration I decided to go have a sandwich instead.

What rate did you sample that sandwich at? Were there any bits left over? Mmmmmm..ham n cheese on Ryequist.

Jay Tee 4303

bitflipper
I was going to give a long, detailed, annotated and cross-referenced response to the OP, but after some consideration I decided to go have a sandwich instead.

What rate did you sample that sandwich at? Were there any bits left over? Mmmmmm..ham n cheese on Ryequist.

As slowly as I could manage, about 6 bites per minute (BPM). Sandwiches are just the opposite of Nyquist: the slower you sample the more detail you experience.

Hint - potato chips make for great dither!