In my personal experience as a music producer for the last 36 years, MIXING hundreds of channels benefits enormously from the available bandwidth. Think of it in the terms of graphics (anti) aliasing. If you open your canvas in 1920x1080, for example, and draw a diagonal line, your line will be jagged (aliased) to a certain extent. If you, on the other hand, start a canvas in 7680x4320 and draw the same diagonal line, and then rescale your output back to FullHD, your line will be perfectly smooth with no visible alias whatsoever. It is absolutely the same principle when mixing music: I MIX everything in 192kHz and I PUBLISH in 48kHz. And, yes, my ears can hear the difference perfectly fine. But, do people like me who are forced to run their audio clock at 192kHz most of the time, deserve a DSP processor like this? It could be very useful, yes.

A sampling rate of 192kHz is overkill. And 192KHz exists as a sample rate in audio world because it is overkill.

With a Nyquist frequency of ~96KHz, all of the arguments about whether a person can hear up to eg 22.05KHz, 24KHz, or if there's something meaningful all the way up at 48KHz, become completely and totally ameliorated.

Those arguments were always such tiresome ordeals.

The cost of dissolving those arguments is just some some bandwidth and CPU cycles -- which is to say, it costs approximately nothing.

Please let the man cook. :)