O.k. Coming close to making some decisions on a computer.
But regarding the sound card.
I probably will stick with my Audiophile 24/96 card. It has worked well and pleased with it for the simple stuff I do.

However I am considering the Audiophile 192, not much more in price.

Would it be worth the change?

The 24 is bit depth right? And the 192 is sampling rate?

But one post in another forum said the 192 took up double the hard drive space. Did they mean hard drive space or CPU usage? I no comprendo! Does it? If so Why?

And that it would really be no upgrade without hight end pre's etc.
Would the slight upgrade to a 192 over the 24/96 be an upgrade really and worth doing?

O.K. Checked around, kinda see bit depth sampling rate relationship to file size,
so I'll just ask the quality of sound question.

I've been told by someone who should be in the know that the 192 has superior converters to the 2496.

Frankly, maybe you would hear it, but probably you wouldn't. But this answers your sound quality question (from one peron's perspective, mind you).

The 192 does have balanced ins and outs, i believe, whereas the the 2496 doesn't.

You can use the 192 to record at 24 bit/ 44.1 Hz, which is probably the best thing to do, so even if you got the 192, you would not be using more hard drive space.

So the real benefit of the balanced I/O's is less noise. Right?

Yes, but mainly at cable runs of more than 10ft (so I've read). Under that, you're usually fine with unbalanced.

O.K. What I thought thanks!