i don't care what the theoretical arguments are for any technology: ifHigher sample rate might be an appeal for historians or librarians because it (sort of) better represents the material that is preserved.
you can't demonstrate that the improvement can be reliably heard by a
majority of humans in double blind testing, i'm not interested.
One day when the industry pushes to 1024khz sample rate, one can even sample most AM radio on their work. How nice. Imagine playing them back is like having a small AM radio station.
On the other hand, I think Paul's argument does apply to many other technologies in general. Am I a happier human being now or 600 years ago? But how to do double blind testing on that?
liulk
