You said:
"The Mike Story Paper is not discussed elsewhere in this thread, and has no other links hereabouts in this thread. It is mentioned by Mr. Lavry responding to Mr Massenburg on page 14 and mentioned in passing by Johnny B without comment. That is all.
With respect, you must have discussed it elsewhere. I certainly haven’t discussed it with anyone hereabouts and only ‘tripped over it’, yesterday."
I say:
I do not view it as a technical paper. It is far from being up to par with what I consider minimum requirement for such consideration. I do not see it as meeting the bar for peer review.
You said:
“although we may not be able to hear energy above 20 kHz, its presence is mathematically necessary to localise the energy in signals below 20 kHz..."
I say:
Yes, and we know mathematically exactly how fast we need to sample to contain 20KHz - ALL THE INFORMATION WITH ALL THE FINEST OF DETAILS, nothing missing! Nyquist theorem is the key, and my paper explains it pretty well. 88.2KHz and 96KHz is more than enough to do so.
Again, do not get confused into thinking that bandwidth and impulse response (or rise time, or quick reaction time) are anything other than one of the same. If the maximum bandwidth of a mic is so and so, say 20KHz, than it can only react to signals up to 20 cycle a second, or a motion with a rise time of such bandwidth. Putting an AD capable of registering almost 5 times the speed of the fastest signal yields no advantage, and the speakers on the other end would limit it if it were possible. It is not just doing the un needed, there is also a big cost involved, including lost accuracy and more serious problems...
I am very glad you brought up the word math. Lets just use correct math and physics.
You said:
I thought it was worth a read.
I say:
A lot of non technical people thought so, and indeed I believe that was one of the explanations for why sampling faster is "possibly better". I imagine it was a good marketing tool, but the information is wrong, and I am not pleased to see that such "work" receives as much attention as it does, making my efforts to steer the industry right just so much more difficult.
I guess I should not complain, given that the subject on this site has over 21000 hits (the average is what 1000?) and there was a lot of action on other sites. 192KHz is going away...
I do not read everything, but I try and watch for your comments.
Best wishes to you too
Dan Lavry