This is mathematics!! ;-)
I agree there is no big differences... but the reason of 96kHz recording is based on interferences behaviour:
do you remeber that:
cos a + cos b = 2*cos((a+b)/2)*sin((a-b)/2))
So if you are mixing two signals: the first with a [a1,b1] frequencies range and the second with [a2,b2] frequencies range, when you mix this two signals, the result is a new signal with [abs(a1-a2),b1+b2)] range.
It means that, if you are mixing two non-audible signals together(from 18Mhz to 25Mhz for ewemple), you can optain frequencies you can ear!!!
That is one reason it could be interesting having a 96kHz format.
The second reason is the quality of the filter and you convert from analog to digital, it's better having a tolerence between the frequencies of the filter and the limit of your ears. This is the reason proffessional format is 48kHz instead of 44kHz...
So I personaly choose 48kHz for the last reason, but this is true 96kHz is perhaps a bit too much for home studio recording ;-)
mmmm... am I clear? ;-)