John T
Yeah, as I said way back on page 2 or something, I can't see how any of this bluster is adding to general comprehension of the topic.
 
I think you can boil down Goddard's objection to the fact that there's no proof of higher sample rates being harmful. As far as I can tell, he has nothing else, apart from this - yes - irrelevant guff about realtek converters and conversations on newsgroups in the late 90s.

Are you really that thick, or is it just that you took a dislike to me and have ever since been trying in every way no matter how luidicrous to discredit my posts?
 
I have for many years now prosecuted and litigated patents in many technical fields covering some rather complex technologies (many far more complex than audio sampling), before both highly technically trained patent examiners and judges and non-technically trained lay judges and juries, and so am quite confident of my ability to explain complicated and highly technical matters in terms which even persons lacking any knowledge of the relevant technology are comfortably able to comprehend. So if you are truly unable to comprehend what I've posted or its relevance to this topic, then perhaps that might have more to do with your powers of comprehension than my posts.
 
Do you really think that all the questions and arguments wrt higher-than Nyquist sampling rates are anything new?
 
It's unfortunate that there is no longer a decent FAQ about, and that people don't think to search for past posts before posting new ones.
 
As I'd already pointed out in my original reply to John (along with cites as he'd requested) the merits/demerits of a higher sampling rate were being raised and argued and agonized over long ago by the learned and experienced (and ad nauseum already at that), since when the first somewhat-affordable double-rate 96k  converters arrived on the scene, as should be quite evident to anyone who's taken the opportunity to look at that 16 year-old cakewalk.audio newsgroup thread to which I'd linked, from a time when DAWs were woefully underpowered and struggled to keep up even at 44.1/48k and when not running any plug-ins, and thus there was keen concern about whether there was any justifiable advantage of using a higher than Nyquist rate, since 48k could still be used for any audio destined for DVDs even if the spec also permitted 96k. and since nobody could actually hear beyond 20k even if their equipement and software was capable of capturing and processing at double rate. and when 24-bits was argued as being wasteful overkill anyway, especially when recording for CD-A, and when Internet connection speeds are so slow and storage so expensive that even CD-A quality audio is being compressed to lower bitrate mp3.
 
Or do you think that concerns and arguments over the merits/demerits of even higher sampling rate are somehow anything new, either, and hadn't arisen years ago when affordable quad-rate 192k interfaces first became available, such as the E-MU 1212m and 1616m to which I referred in an earlier post? Granted, there might not have been that much discussion of 192k in the CW forums at the time (except complaints), as 192k was only possible with some interfaces such as E-MU's when using ASIO drivers and Sonar at the time still lacked ASIO support, but there was plenty of discussion about 192k (and Dan Lavry's paper) in other audio-related venues, much of it revolving about the very same arguments as had arisen around 96k and basically just substituting 192 for 96. Perhaps some of the past concerns from the 96k era, such as higher processing power and bandwidth required, had been dropped from the discussions as no longer so pressing thanks to faster processing and cheaper storage, but much of the discussion was the same old same old but with a higher number. The discussions about sampling at 192k have since then been escalated along with proliferation of the blogosphere and no doubt in some part took off again once Neil Young and Apple and others started talking about distributing higher rate/bit-depth audio and others called it snake-oil and just another attempt to milk some money out of the easily-duped, but the discussion has remained very much the same old song and dance even if the players and dancers may have changed and only but a very few new twists have actually been added into the mix, such as "192k is harmful" and "192k is excessive".
 
So if you want to call my posting a link to that 1998 newsgroup thread about 96k irrelevant, fine, but why not tell us what, if anything, discussed in this current thread about 192k wasn't already being discussed, albeit only in relation to 96k at the time, in that old thread from way back when, or how sampling at 192k is in any respect different from sampling at 96k and thus renders a 1998 discussion of 96k irrelevant to this current topic?
 
And while you may continue to try to paint my pointing to the 192k capabilities of the lowly onboard codec chips equipped inside millions of PCs and Macs as irrelevant guff, perhaps it's just your inability to make the logical leap to a realization that anyone with a recent vintage HDA-equipped PC or Mac has already in their possesion the means by which to test and judge, with their very own ears and mind, the claims being made by others concerning 192k sampling instead of relying upon what they read on some blog or forum, which prevents you from finding the relevance.
 
Perhaps if that facetious scientist had possessed sufficient awareness of what he was writing about to come to such a realization himself and point out that anyone with a Mac laptop might conduct their own testing of 192k sampling...
 
Now, if anyone wants to discuss how to go about testing 192k with their HDA codec-equipped PC, I'll be happy to offer what advice I can, and will start by recommending to try Sonar's Windows driver (WASAPI) mode using the onboard sound chip's WaveRT driver for lowest latency, or Sonar's ASIO driver mode along with the ASIO4ALL wrapper (because most onboard codecs lack ASIO driver support).

mettelus
@Bob... yup, there is a lot of good information here, but finding it is becoming a bear.
 
A course in journalism might help... front loading "the point" and major data helps folks like me with short attention spans to get to the end of a post (or not even need to).

Sigh, I apparently missed the target in my initial post by expressing my points in the form of  succinct "Surprise!" statements in the expectation that might cause folks to wake up and smell the BS in that blog article and start thinking about and testing 192k for themselves...

Just to put things in perspective. Many are reading this thread to 1) get a better understanding of things and 2) be able to walk away with something usable (for whatever their personal preference may be, and for whatever reason). Bob's point is a very valid one... debating is fine, disagreements is fine, personal attacking I expect from a 5 year old (and that goes for everyone who does it).
 
Oddly enough, 263 posts into this thread... my main take-away was in post #7.

Goddard
Perhaps if that facetious scientist had possessed sufficient awareness of what he was writing about
 

I dare say that the facetious scientist probably knows his audience well enough to give it what it thinks it wants to think rather than offer the audience something to think about.
 
My initial reaction to the article linked in the OP, and its introduction to this forum as "science", was that it was a load of hooey. I recognized that somehow, the article seemed appropriate to, and indicative of, the current demeanor of this forum. The article seemed to generalize ideas, present opinion as fact, and promote misunderstanding while the author postured as if he had something important to share. My reaction has been to suspect that the author just wanted to fill up his advertisement supported blog with more words so as to appear to be a published authority. It seems to me that he did so by playing down to his audience.
 
I have grown accustomed to viewing discussions at this forum where ignorance, and disregard for fact, prevails by virtue of the persistence of a tiny minded clique of a few people who routinely gather in camaraderie to celebrate and excuse their misunderstanding while indulging in clever repartee as if it is a substitute for honest discussion.
 
 
 
Thanks for making some time to remind me, and perhaps other readers, that there is quality info available.
 
best regards,
mike

Perhaps this article on sampling rates may be of interest. As noted in the small print, taken from this guide from Apogee, which includes additional content concerning other aspects of digital audio (good luck trying to find it on Apogee's site!).

robert_e_bone
 For all we know, the brand new band 'The Bed Bugs' are using X3 to finish their breakout CD, somewhere in East London, inspired by the comping and the ARA integration of Melodyne.

Is that an actual band?
 
Just for the record, in case you weren't aware, X3 isn't the only (or even the first) DAW offering comping and ARA integration with Melodyne.
 
(not that one necessarily even needs to employ Melodyne in order to perform pitch shifting even if their DAW app does happen to include Melodyne integation, as Craig Anderton explained in this 2012 tutorial article.)

For anyone who is not already aware that all/most of this stuff was already being discussed online years ago, here's a 2004 thread at another forum entitled "192KHz sample rate for audio" started by Dan Lavry himself.
 
And just for good contrast, here's a 2009 thread started by someone else on a different forum entitled "24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!" in which both higher bit depths and higher sampling rates were argued about (and to which the facetious scientist's "Why (Almost) Everything You Thought You Knew About Bit Depth Is Probably Wrong" blog post links as proving that 24-bit audio can be instantly fatal if played at high volume!).
 
(had to hunt down my bookmark for Lavry's thread on an old disused laptop)

Everyone's entirely aware that this stuff has been being discussed for years.

Goddard, all negativity aside, I'm curious what the point is you are trying to make at this point?  Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like whatever point you were trying to make was likely made long ago and most of what has been said after the first couple of pages is just various rehash...on all sides.  You, yourself have stated this is not a new debate and I have yet to see anyone disagree on that. Someone also pointed out that based on this thread, it is unlikely that anyone changes their mind about anything. Are you trying to discredit the original article?  If so, I think it is fair to say that everyone, including the OP has made clear they recognize it is not the most scientific article.  Some still found value in it while aware it had flaws. So it sounds like you are trying to tear down something that does not really need it. It comes off as more arguing for the sake of arguing. The same goes for those counttering your arguments.  I said early on that it is not a matter of disagreeing with you.  I honestly have no idea of whether you are right or wrong but your demeanor makes your message harder to digest.  I know this is an exaggeration, but for some your method would be just as effective as a guy in a kkk robe trying to give a speech on the joys of Kwanza.  When your message gets lost in tit for tat condescension, a lot of the good you are saying gets lost with it.

I can't believe you guys. What a waste of brain power. I guess you missed my cliff notes early on in the thread. But meh, it's a long miserable winter so please rave on.