lawp
as craig points out, it's all in the maths (whether you can hear it or not ;-)) i.e., generally, the bigger the digital-unit-to-realworld-unit ratio, the better or more accurate it all is

No.
 
Once you are more accurate than human hearing, you cannot get better accuracy unless you replace the human with something better. 

What is puzzling to me is that at lower sample rates (44/48) I get "lower" buffer settings but "higher" latency times. Conversely, at higher sample rates (96/192) I get "higher" buffer settings and "lower" latency. Haven't got my brain around this yet. Can anyone clarify this confusion for me? p.s., This is why 96KHz was the "sweet spot" for my system as I got useable enough low latency and some "wiggle" room to increase my buffer if needed.

Think of it this way: As long as you aren't moving faster than the rest of us a second is a second. 

drewfx1

lawp
as craig points out, it's all in the maths (whether you can hear it or not ;-)) i.e., generally, the bigger the digital-unit-to-realworld-unit ratio, the better or more accurate it all is

No.
 
Once you are more accurate than human hearing, you cannot get better accuracy unless you replace the human with something better. 

That is a really great point. I wanted to say something like it but no where near as well. 

John

drewfx1

lawp
as craig points out, it's all in the maths (whether you can hear it or not ;-)) i.e., generally, the bigger the digital-unit-to-realworld-unit ratio, the better or more accurate it all is

No.
 
Once you are more accurate than human hearing, you cannot get better accuracy unless you replace the human with something better. 

That is a really great point. I wanted to say something like it but no where near as well. 

so only dogs and bapu can hear the difference?

Here's how I perceive different sample rates:  44.1 = Mp3, ear buds, iTunes, iPod, average car stereos, boomboxes     96KHz = CD, good studio monitors, and above average home stereos     192KHz = audiophile home stereos (and mostly classical and HD recorded acoustic music). So the final medium and intended audience has a factor in the sample rate choice for "capture". It's similar to photography and pixels:  5 mp camera makes an excellent photo but not past a 5x7 print    8mp camera makes excellent 8x10 inch print    20mp camera makes excellent 16x20 print etc. But if one is only going to print 5x7 photos then having a 20mp camera is then a waste. My intended audience is CD and above average home stereos. But downsampling from 96 to 44.1 can let me print "any" size photo from 5x7 to 16x20 (figuratively). eg. Mp3, earbuds to higher end stereo systems. If my theory is incorrect, please enlighten me.

Love your quote John T. "Basically, I decided to stop worrying about it and get on with making records." Makes me want to get off of this computer and go back into my studio and actually produce something!

Milton
Here's how I perceive different sample rates:  44.1 = Mp3, ear buds, iTunes, iPod, average car stereos, boomboxes     96KHz = CD, good studio monitors, and above average home stereos     192KHz = audiophile home stereos (and mostly classical and HD recorded acoustic music). So the final medium and intended audience has a factor in the sample rate choice for "capture". It's similar to photography and pixels:  5 mp camera makes an excellent photo but not past a 5x7 print    8mp camera makes excellent 8x10 inch print    20mp camera makes excellent 16x20 print etc. But if one is only going to print 5x7 photos then having a 20mp camera is then a waste. My intended audience is CD and above average home stereos. But downsampling from 96 to 44.1 can let me print "any" size photo from 5x7 to 16x20 (figuratively). eg. Mp3, earbuds to higher end stereo systems. If my theory is incorrect, please enlighten me.

How did you arrive at those conclusions?  You know CDs are 16 bit 44.1 kH Sample rate? 
 
Also there is no relationship with digital imaging and digital audio.  
 
With images there really is no size issue. Its really how large you want the "pixels" to be. 
 
Your idea is more analogous to loudness for sound not "quality". 

drewfx1

lawp
as craig points out, it's all in the maths (whether you can hear it or not ;-)) i.e., generally, the bigger the digital-unit-to-realworld-unit ratio, the better or more accurate it all is

No.
 
Once you are more accurate than human hearing, you cannot get better accuracy unless you replace the human with something better. 

Yes, the more accurate the maths the more accurate the final output, you're talking about the final mix that the end listeners here, I'm talking about the mixing

Milton
Here's how I perceive different sample rates:  44.1 = Mp3, ear buds, iTunes, iPod, average car stereos, boomboxes     96KHz = CD, good studio monitors, and above average home stereos     192KHz = audiophile home stereos (and mostly classical and HD recorded acoustic music). So the final medium and intended audience has a factor in the sample rate choice for "capture". It's similar to photography and pixels:  5 mp camera makes an excellent photo but not past a 5x7 print    8mp camera makes excellent 8x10 inch print    20mp camera makes excellent 16x20 print etc. But if one is only going to print 5x7 photos then having a 20mp camera is then a waste. My intended audience is CD and above average home stereos. But downsampling from 96 to 44.1 can let me print "any" size photo from 5x7 to 16x20 (figuratively). eg. Mp3, earbuds to higher end stereo systems. If my theory is incorrect, please enlighten me.

Sampling is nothing like photography.
 
At a given sample rate, if you band limit the signal to (i.e. filter out everything above) 1/2 of the sampling frequency (aka the Nyquist frequency) then the entire signal is stored in the samples - including the part of the waveform between the samples. In the real world, the filters used for band limiting (and reconstructing the signal) will not be perfect a little bit below the Nyquist frequency.
 
What this means is that for sampling itself*, higher sampling rates do give "more resolution" or "better accuracy" or anything like that - they just allow for higher frequencies to be sampled. And 44.1kHz and/or 48kHz already allow for the entire frequency range of human hearing to be accounted for. Though many believe they can hear higher ultrasonic frequencies, none of them can seem to demonstrate this ultrasonic hearing ability under controlled double blind listening tests.
 
 
*Certain types of processing can benefit from a higher sampling rate, such as processing that creates higher frequencies.