LPs to .WAVs: 24/96 or 24/192 ?, USB drive OK ?

I will soon be undertaking the major project of
archiving 100s of LPs to a 120G USB hard drive(s).
Does anyone here think it would be worth it to
record at 24/192 instead of 24/96 ?

If so, any recommendations for a 24/192 card ?
The WAVETERMINAL 192X is the only card I have found so
far for under $500.

Will a USB drive suffice for both record and playback ?
Any speed concerns ?

USB drives should work fine, but Firewire is a superior connection. The drawback of high sampling rates is that they take up a greater amount of disk space. 192kHz will require 4x the space as 44kHz. Don't forget that for safety reasons you'll also have to backup your data. The sonic benefits of recording at the higher rates depends upon the type of music you'll be recording. Most rock type music really doesn't benefit from anything more than 44kHz. Music with a wider dynamic range would be a better candidate for higher sampling rates.
Check out the Lynx Two card which is marketed by HHB. Go to www.hhbusa.com for info. It will do 192Khz.

As to whether it's worth it, I slightly disagree with the above post. Hard disk space is cheap. Yes, it will take twice as much space, but either way, you will need more than 120 gigs for archival purposes. I guess it takes about five or six gigs at 24/96 for a typical LP, and 10 or 12 at 24/192. The real problem will be that, if you want to do any normalization, denoising, depopping, etc, those large files take a LONG time. I have a 1.3 GHz Pentium IV computer and a I bulk denoised/depopped//downsampled/etc a 45 minute LP. It took about 35 minutes of processing time. At 192KHz, you're talking about 70 minutes.

I personally do not think it is worth the extra $$ or inconvenience to do 192, especially if you are only going to down sample it to 16/44. You really won't hear the difference.

Interestingly, I got into this game about 6 months ago for the same reason as you and I went through the same quandry. I opted for the Digital Analog Labs Card Deluxe which does 24/96. I am very happy with the card and the process. But in the process of listening to dozens of albums as I was copying them, I fell in love with vinyl and now only listen to the cd's in the car!

Either way, if you can find a software package that will take a 24/96 wav file and convert it to DVD-A, let me know - I'd love to try it out.
For most (probably all) commercial recordings, even 24/96 is overkill. Remember, your LPs do not even have the dynamic range of CD. Nothing wrong with using higher resolution, and it might buy you some margin for error. But 24/192 in this case would be a pure waste of disk space.
Let me correct my above statement. Regarding what type of music would benefit from using higher sampling rates, it's more complex than dynamic range. Most pop/rock music is heavily processed and although not as a direct result it also has a limited dynamic range. My experience is that the heavily processed music really doesn't benefit from using the higher sampling rates. Possibly more important than the sampling rate is the bit depth. My experience is that all types of music benefit from using 24 bit A/D converters.

Gboren is correct, hard disk space is cheap, however, there are problems with installations containing multiple large hard disks drives. Unlike vinyl discs or even CDs, your hard disk drive will not last forever. Eventually, it will crash. You will need a method to back up your data. Paradoxically, the cheapest way to back up data is via added hard drives. Internal hard disk are convenient and don't generate the noise problems that external drives can. Unfortunately, most computer have only limited drive space and heat management (the major cause of drive failure) can become an issue.

Although somewhat pricey, the Lynx card is considered the best sounding computer card with built in converters. RME cards are less expensive, but they don't do 192kHz, only 96kHz.