Jeff Evans
I think the whole topic of this thread is a bit moot and uninteresting to say the least.  There are far better things one could talk about eg how to get better mixes! And that has nothing to do with sampling rate!

 
People are led to believe that things like this are a big deal, so we have the occasional thread discussing it in detail.  
 

I have read some very interesting books by people such as Bob Katz and others and most agree that a higher sampling rate is better but we only really need to go to about 60K in order to really get the improvement.  So the closest thing to that we have today is either 88.2K or 96K.  Once you start going much higher you are getting into that very subtle hi fi territory where tons of expense will yield only a very small or even inaudible result.

 
I believe that those discussions were not taking oversampling into account. 
 
With the oversampling converters that are in overwhelming use today the only questions end up coming down to whether ultrasonics are of any value (and for all the noise about them, there isn't much in the way of proof for some reason), and whether the digital filters in the converters can do their job transparently at 44.1/48kHz.

My reference to sampling rates being around 60Khz from people such as Bob Katz are referring to mainly converter rates coming in and going out, recording high quality analog sources such as quality mics/pres etc on very nice instruments.  It was not talking about internal sampling rates for things such as VST's or effects processing.  I think we now know that having higher processing rates for those things are a good thing.
 
In terms of commercial I would have thought millions of low res files being sold being compared to only a handful of very high quality formats is pretty obvious.
 
I don't think the industry is going to start hassling us for 192KHz masters anytime soon.  Making money too is not based on what sample rate you use either.  It is very much about something else.  So even if we do have to this later I am sure we will have time.  And the obvious thing in upgrading all our hardware to be able to do it is another matter as well.
 
I am just realising what is required for an all 96K system end to end and for me that means working with digital mixers and they too have to be able to handle that end to end. Not that many can  do it. Many stop at 48 Khz.

Question for Drew:
I am starting to understand, I think.
You indicated that there is no space between the samples.
Assuming frequency range is not an issue, at what sample rate is there an audible space between the samples?

deswind
Question for Drew:
I am starting to understand, I think.
You indicated that there is no space between the samples.
Assuming frequency range is not an issue, at what sample rate is there an audible space between the samples?

There is never any audible space between the samples because the DAC reconstructs a smooth analog curve that passes through each sample point. 

Thanks Drew.  Sorry to belabor this.  When you say it reconstructs, at some low sample rate point, does that reconstruction not imitate reality?

mike_mccue

 
Yes, this ^. 
 
If you aren't sure if you understand sampling, or even if you think you do, please watch all of that video.

deswind
Thanks Drew.  Sorry to belabor this.  When you say it reconstructs, at some low sample rate point, does that reconstruction not imitate reality?

 
The first step is to filter out everything greater than one half of the sampling frequency. So at a lower sample rate, you reduce the frequency range.


Sampling can actually be simple if the misinformation is removed and we don't get bogged down in the technical details and borderline cases:
 
Sampling rate = frequency range
Bit depth = noise level
 
So if ignore the impulse that "bigger has to be better!!!" for recording and playback we are left with:
 
1. The sampling frequency needs to double the highest frequency we want in our signal (plus a reasonable margin of error).
 
2. The bit depth has to be high enough that we can't hear the quantization error plus dither (plus a reasonable margin of error).
 
 
It really is that simple.

drewfx1

mike_mccue

 
Yes, this ^. 
 
If you aren't sure if you understand sampling, or even if you think you do, please watch all of that video.

 
I watch it, once a year, in 720P, because the explanations make more sense when you watch it in HD.

Good points there Drew but what if there are frequencies above 22 kHz. Who says all music cuts off at 22 kHz. Back in the finest turntable days Ortofon made their moving coil SL15Q pickup to go out to a tasty 50 kHz. Yes that is right, 50 kHz. Their active preamp goes out to 100 kHz! (A preamp is needed to bring moving coil voltages up to moving magnet voltages. Bit like ribbon mics being a little lower in level too)
 
So why cannot very high sounds such as cymbals and things have useable harmonics to 50 and 60 kHz.  Also my Revox Reel to Reel tape machine has a spec that goes out to 23 kHz or so. But on the bench when you set everything up right you can still get useable output even at 35 kHz!! Its low but its there.  (One of the nice things about analog is the frequency response dies off slowly. It never gets slammed off like it does in digital)
 
So analog signals may go out a little further than 22 kHz. It would be nice to capture them as well and that is why I think people like Bob Katz and other experts have said it would be nice to at least go out to 60K sample rates. It means that the 30 kHz information can still be reproduced. The filters dont have to be steep around 20kHz anymore and that could be one reason why 96K sounds so nice perhaps.