Who is? And what is your setup?
I fear of spamming again my harddrives with the doubled size of the double size of 48kHz...
I did 192 recordings for a extreme pitched down Vocals one time. It was just a test, on what is going on in the upper frequency spectrum. The result was something between artefacts and noise :D. So its more of a playground thingy.
Where 192k is very important for sound quality -> if you use distortion or amp simulation. There, the higher frequencies fold back on the audible ones (i can't give you a source for this, it was my Sound Design trainer who told me this) -> 192k makes sense.
I very rarely go outside of 24 bit 96k recording. For the most part, nothing interesting happens up above 48kHz anyway. I'll go to 192 for things like contact mics, electrostatic recordings, or metallic things like bells. Other than that 96k works great for me.
I'll record 24/48 for ambiences, 24/96 for most fx that I'm going to manipulate later.
192 khz only if the sonic material, the microphone and preamp allow it. in my case that's not a lot of times. but it is interesting for 'playtime' moments. city atmospheres pitched and filtered can sound very beautiful and airy.
Usually (more than 90% of the time) I am recording at 24/96; when I think a sound I am going to record might sound interesting after heavy pitchshifting, I switch to 24/192. Setup is a MS rig of Sennheiser MKH 30/8040 into a Sound Devices 702.
24/96 is my standard for recording anything these days and 192kHz is a must for when I know the material will be significantly manipulated (and the recording equipment can actually handle it). Even when recording for video projects that are standard 48kHz I run a second recorder at 24/96 as a backup.
Considering how cheap storage has gotten and 24/96 using up about ~1GB per hour per track, 24/192 ~2GB per hour per track and a 1TB HD sells for about EUR 50, I don't think that storage space / price should be an excuse anymore.
It's also a matter of staying "future proof". I've already had cases where clients demanded 96kHz recordings (whether or not that was actually warranted is a different question) so it's good to just be ready for that.
I compared 41 khz and 192 khz. Admittedly, recording a guitar may not make a big difference but there was one. It was as if someone had increased the presence a little mixed with an exciter. This effect was barely audible but it was there. If I were to record drums, cybals, a piano or acoustic instrument, I'm sure that it would make a slight difference. Not sure about electronic music. Recording at 192 khz will probably tax my computer and hard drive. Perhaps I'll record some items as 192 and others at 96khz - yet to be tried.