John
Perhaps you missed the word sound. Electronics are a different matter.

 
It is not that easy to squirm out of being corrected for your habit of spreading misinformation.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subharmonic
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone
 
 

Sorry, John, I guess you're not blocked after all.
 
Talking of argumentative people..

There are reasons why you would want to keep ultrasonic frequencies out of your DAW. A contrived example is where high frequency content can affect compressor behavior, causing audible frequencies to be compressed in a different way than if the ultrasonic content wasn't present.
 
I say contrived because it is unlikely that you will have that much ultrasonic energy present, but the point is that just because you can't hear it, doesn't mean it can't interfere.
 
Another example is plugins like tube emulators that have non-linear transfer functions and hence will create intermodulation distortion when ultrasonic content is present.
 
Maybe the actual effect of ultrasonic frequencies on the audible range is minimal in practice, but people have no problem arguing about 32-bit vs 64-bit floating point differences. The difference caused by ultrasonic frequencies on the audible range is probably significantly higher that the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit processing.

John T

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.

Which is why the blurb you extracted was followed by this:
 
"The above is a nonsensical brain purge, caused by this thread, and not to be taken as anything to be taken."
 
I think you may be right - and I am certainly no expert in the finer details of this subject.  My 2 main points were keeping the discussion civil, and communicating my satisfaction with the settings I use.
 
Bob Bone
 

Yes the discussion continues!
 
Lets take Bob's advise and keep it civil. There are people that want to read this.

mike_mccue
SONAR does 384kHZ.
 
Just saying. ;-)
 
Does anyone want to elaborate on the sample hold optimization?

Yes, I found this interesting too! Bit?
 

jb101
Sorry, John, I guess you're not blocked after all.
 
Talking of argumentative people..

Right you are Mike. I always spread misinformation whenever I can. 
 
 
Maybe if you were to read what you linked to it might occur to you that what is being refereed to is not the normal situation with most sound. Special strings are used for producing "subharmonics". I wouldn't call that normal. 

Alright guys - I am no moderator, and am just asking - please break the cycle of attack and defend.
 
Everyone has the right to have the wrong idea (wrong being defined as anything different than how I see things).  :)
 
Folks are inevitably going to have differing views on things, and friction will always come along now and then.  Let's just accept that and keep away from reacting and escalating - please.
 
This thread has a good chunk of sniping - let's try to steer clear of that, moving forward.
 
Bob Bone
 
 
 

Everyone has the right to use whatever bit depth and sample rate they so choose. We are blessed with a DAW that can handle any and all possibilities. I have given my reasons for choosing the ones I use. Others may want to use something else for their own reasons. The world will not end no matter what any of us choose. 
 
Keep on making music and be happy! There is way to much in this world to be sad about but this ain't one of them.

Grem

mike_mccue
SONAR does 384kHZ.
 
Just saying. ;-)
 
Does anyone want to elaborate on the sample hold optimization?

Yes, I found this interesting too! Bit?
 

I'd like to know more about this too.