BobF
After reading these, I decided that for the money I'm willing to spend on converters, 48K is plenty good for me.  The first references the second.
 
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/
 
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf

Those references are great, thanks for that. I think the first one is one of the most balanced and rational discussions of the subject I've seen, although that just might be because I agree 
 
The only place I disagree a little bit is where he minimizes the number of plug-ins that don't have oversampling. That's true for newer plug-ins, but a lot of older ones (that are still compatible with our computers) don't have oversampling.
 

After reading these, I decided that for the money I'm willing to spend on converters, 48K is plenty good for me. 

Unless you do a ton of stuff in the box with non-oversampled plug-ins, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't hear any difference between recording at 48 and 96 kHz. And even if you do have to stick an older plug-in into your 48 kHz project, as detailed previously you can always record a track at a higher sample rate, export it, and bring it into your 48 kHz project yet still retain the benefits of the higher sample rate.

Anderton
 
The only place I disagree a little bit is where he minimizes the number of plug-ins that don't have oversampling. That's true for newer plug-ins, but a lot of older ones (that are still compatible with our computers) don't have oversampling.
 

 
I haven't tried it - but DDMF Metaplugin have an oversampling thingy to activate for the loaded plugins it's hosting. Have no idea how that works, if it works....but Christian is doing many things right, so...
 

The Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, states that a perfectly bandlimited analog signal can be perfectly reconstructed from an infinite sequence of equally spaced uniform samples if the sampling rate exceeds twice the highest frequency of the original signal. Since neither of those entities exist in our reality e.g. a perfect band limited filter or an infinite sequence of equally spaced uniform samples, using the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem to justify not using higher sampling frequencies is a bit unreasonable. Empirical data collected on devices being sold today would constitute a reasonable argument. imho

In reading both of the above, I did NOT get that justification out of them.

Anderton
This is true with audio, too. I was mixing a song once where the lead guitarist insisted on the guitar being louder. It was plenty loud, but you know how guitarists are   I realize the customer is always right, but I really didn't want to ruin the mix. So I put tape on an adjacent mixer channel that wasn't connected to anything and wrote "guitar" on it. When he asked for more level, I'd turn up the fader very slowly. "Is this loud enough?" "No, louder!" So I'd "turn up" the bogus fader some more. Eventually, he'd say "YES! Now you have it! See how much better it sounds now?"

When playing gigs, we've occasionally setup a "dummy mic".
For those times when an audience member (who can't sing) jumps up on stage.
We just point them to the "wireless SM58" in the back corner.  
 

BobF
In reading both of the above, I did NOT get that justification out of them.

Bob if you are referring to my post it was not intended to answer or address any post above. I briefly read some of the referenced material and some of the post and just posted my thoughts. Amazing photo by the way.

rabeach
Amazing photo by the way.

Agreed! Apparently BobF is literally a star 

rabeach

BobF
In reading both of the above, I did NOT get that justification out of them.

Bob if you are referring to my post it was not intended to answer or address any post above. I briefly read some of the referenced material and some of the post and just posted my thoughts. Amazing photo by the way.

Thanks.  Yes, I was.  I was just being clear for the sake of anybody following.  This has to be the most discussed topic ever ... well, besides 'Subscription vs Membership'  LOL
 
 

rabeach
The Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, states that a perfectly bandlimited analog signal can be perfectly reconstructed from an infinite sequence of equally spaced uniform samples if the sampling rate exceeds twice the highest frequency of the original signal. Since neither of those entities exist in our reality e.g. a perfect band limited filter or an infinite sequence of equally spaced uniform samples, using the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem to justify not using higher sampling frequencies is a bit unreasonable. Empirical data collected on devices being sold today would constitute a reasonable argument. imho

It's perfectly reasonable and you can justify it. You just need to allow additional space of ~10% below the Nyquist frequency for the filter to roll off. 
 
That's the short answer. The full answer in terms of how the pieces fit together in the real world is a bit more involved.
 
But it still all comes down to any issues having to do with the filters being above the frequency range one cares about - in the real world it just ends up being a bit below the Nyquist frequency.

BobF
This has to be the most discussed topic ever ... well, besides 'Subscription vs Membership'  LOL

 
You forgot Mac vs. PC!  Well, maybe not on SONAR forums...