-- I posted this over on Gearslutz, in a '192' debate, but I guessed most of you guys are too high class for that joint, so I pasted it here too --
Ok guys, how about this perspective:
In spatial terms, if 20k has a wavelength of 1.7 cm, then perhaps higher sampling rates can help us better represent the spatial timing differences in sounds.
Or, specifically, a recording made at 44.1 will 'quantize' the spatial timing aspects of a recording into chunks of 1.7cm.
When you think of the scale of a drumkit, cello or guitar, 1.7cm sampling seems rather crude.....Imagine a cello made of sugar cubes....pretty low resolution in my book.
Or imagine the round edge of a snare drum, quantized into 1.7cm blocks....not very round!
The strings on a guitar are often closer together than 1.7cm!
I'm not just talking left-right here, but front-back too.
In these terms, analogue tape really kills digital, but one can see in very real terms just how higher sampling rates might improve this aspect of imaging (ie. realness - and I would expect 192 to sound much more REAL than 44.1, where 1.7cm becomes 0.17cm - but I'd reckon on needing MUCH higher rates for really real sound).
Also (a small digression), these sorts of measurements start to make sense of the anti-NFB argument, where negative feedback can actually start to make spatially measureable distortions.
Andy