Goddard
You were free to question or dispute anything I had asserted. But that's apparently not your style.
 
Um, so where exactly did I insult, implicitly or explicitly, anyone who'd disagreed with what I'd posted?

If you are incapable of seeing it the first time around, I doubt you will see or acknowledge it this time. me pointing it out will likely just lead to circles of denial, wasting both of our times.  I know they like to do stuff like that on gearslutz, but I'll pass. If you don't see it...shrug.  For me it was never about disputing or questioning anything you said.  Honestly, i don't know who is right.  I have just always been skeptical of those who seem so dead set on being right. Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it that determines how well you are heard.

Lookit... there are some of us who simply don't need those ultra high sample rates and really have no business using them but get confused looking at fancy specs and marketing crap implying "MORE IS MORE" when in reality it isn't.
 
I think THAT was the point of the article and whom it was written for and very likely the reason Noel posted it in the first place.
 
I'm the last person to poo poo academia because that is a startling trend occurring more and more in modern society by those who either fear it or have an agenda at keeping people uneducated HOWEVER there comes a time when us not so academic folks need things dumbed down for us a bit so we can apply all this wonderful work to our own lives. That is kind of the point of scientific endeavor is it not? To enrich humanity as a whole?
 
I feel I walked away with some useful knowledge from this posting. I'll leave the finer points to the scientists.
 
Also the author did go well out of his way to say some of the things he was discussing were subjective, others were still being debated (and will likely continue to be debated) and some things are still unknown. There was very little pretense and at every turn he encouraged the reader to come to their own conclusions and do what is right for their own needs.
 
Just sayin'.

anyway, it has all died down now anyway.  i got use out of the article, flaws and all.  I doubt we are going to walk out of this thread holding hands and singing kumbaya, so I'll just leave it alone..  Have an awesome day

We all have our moments... and tone comes across pretty well even in text. Just please bear in mind that 1) there is a massive audience and 2) many users want to walk away with an understanding of how things work and, more importantly, how they can apply it. There were a lot of "golden nuggets" dropped in this thread, but is a bit hard to find them.
 
John T made a great point (butchered paraphrase here, sorry) that, as users, we really need to lay some trust that the engineers making the pieces parts did their job correctly (adequately)... our focus as operators is to know what is the best tool for the job.
 
That said, I respect the inputs of everyone in this forum and am thankful for what folks bring to the table. I do not have to "agree" with everything, nor does everyone have to agree with me... in fact, when I am wrong, being corrected is the best way for me to learn.

mettelus
 
That said, I respect the inputs of everyone in this forum and am thankful for what folks bring to the table.

How DARE you!!!
 
*fisticuffs*
 
;-p

LOL... it is true... but I will still fight

Just in case anyone wonders where I (and this forum) actually come from, I'd recommend to take the time to browse the old cakewalk.audio newsgroup thread from 1998 about 96k sampling (which I'd linked to in post #38):
 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/cakewalk.audio/sKdF8ZHvlJc/jLbRbsNd75QJ
 
where it can be seen that most, if not all, the stuff in that "Science of..." blog and which has been raised and debated in this forum thread was already being argued about in the newsgroup back then, when PCs were woefully less powerful than today and 96k sampling was just becoming possible. Plus, a lot more, including very serious discussion and knowledgeable viewpoints being expressed and even some cussing too.
 
Just in case anyone here might care about living up to their heritage...

OMG Goddard! I remember that stuff!!! Where did you find that?!!! I got to looking around. Wow have we come a long way!

In all 3 of the cases I listed depending on the corresponding render bit depth setting in preferences.
By default however SONAR only creates float files when doing bounces or freezes since the render bit depth is set to float.
 

Goddard

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
The storage format on disk is always standard WAV file format (WAVE_FORMAT_PCM or WAVE_FORMAT_IEEE_FLOAT, WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE in some cases). The bit depth is determined as follows:
 
1. Bit depth for recorded project audio data is determined by the record bit depth setting in preferences.
2. Bit depth for imported project audio data is determined by the import bit depth setting in preferences.
3. Bit depth for internally rendered (bounce, freeze, etc) project audio data is determined by the render bit depth setting.
 
Typically a SONAR project will contain multiple bit depth audio depending on the data it was created with and the intermediate bounce operations performed. The different bit depths are all converted to 32 or 64 bit float at playback time depending on the double precision mix engine setting.
 

Ah, I see. That's precisely what I was curious to know. In what cases would float format WAV file storage be done?

Beepster
 
Thanks for the confirmation on that. I guess at that point the only way to possibly resolve the theoretical issues is through quantum computing (which is like... wow man) and optic circuitry where light is used instead of electric current which although electricity technically moves at light speed is slowed down by the resistance of the conductive material.
 

 
 
Hmm. Interesting line of thought.

Off the top of my head, I suspect you couldn't solve it with light based computing, because you'd still be at the mercy of a conversion step, and that's where all the problems discussed really arise from; the conversion step. For example, the filter problem; that only matters in the analogue domain. We can make incredible digital filters. But unfortunately, we need to do the filtering before we go digital, as the Nyquist theorem shows. 
 
 
 

Beepster
For our humble sacks of mostly water trying to make pleasant sounding noise though really... it looks like we've gone WAY beyond what we actually need. In a very short time at that.

 
That, I'm certain is the case. If we want to make good sounding records, we're far better off focussing on rooms, mics, technique, and musicianship (whether technically flash or just instinctively cool-sounding).

In terms of the back end of pres, convertors, summing, and what have you, this stuff even at prosumer level now is way better than it will ever need to be.

And that's what always strikes me most about these arguments. Anyone obsessing over sample rate is looking in pretty much exactly the wrong place.