thanks for setting me straight John. 
 
I smell bacon in the kitchen - going to be a good day!

robert_e_bone
Alright, sooooooooooooo, huh?
 
What does ANY of the last 7.5 pages of this matter?
 
NONE of it means anything beyond the range of human hearing

Ah, no, got to disagree there. The entire thing under discussion is that things are happening outside of the range of human hearing which are relevant to the sound you end up with. What those things are and how much the matter is open to question.

Well there was that one blurb about ultra high sample rates can interact beyond the audible frequency range and create noise WITHIN the audible frequency range. But that's probably the opposite of the point Bob was making.

Sure, that's complete guff.

Sound doesn't work that way. It does not create lower frequencies from higher frequencies. 

John T
Sure, that's complete guff.

Sarcasm? Seriously I have no idea whether that's the case or not. I can only attempt to decipher all this wacky sciency stuff with my cranial equivalent of a cereal prize decoder ring.
 
A little insight into my profile pic. I'm the little kitten curiously beeping the noses of the big dogs to see if any useful info comes out. Many times it does. Sometimes I just become lunch.

John
Sound doesn't work that way. It does not create lower frequencies from higher frequencies. 

But that's what the article says... I think.
 
Okay... I'll leave now. Doggies are lookin' hungry. :-/

Not everything in that article is true. That is a given. What I have been objecting to with Goodard is the whole sale  dismissing all of it because a few unimportant facts were misstated. 

I think he's one of those dudes who just likes to argue. On the internet I hear it's considered a art.

I think his avatar says it all, Beep.