> I don't think there are flaws in the article as you claim. It already explicitly explains that oversampling at the ADC or DAC is an acceptable engineering solution
Of course it is acceptable. Even 14 bit audio at 36KHz with a great DAC would be fairly nice, acceptable.
What the article claims is that 192KHz is useless, of no benefit. And i contend that it is of benefit when you want more than just good or acceptable performance. Not if you have a run of the mill DAC and OK headphones/speakers, but it is if you are a music lover and critical listener.
You've missed the point though - no human has demonstrated the ability to be able to distinguish the fidelity of audio above 44.1kHz sampling in a properly controlled comparison test (double blind). This empirical result is to be expected given the biology of the ear and the science of sampling theory, as the article explains.
It doesn't matter if you're a music lover or critical listener!
> What the article claims is that 192KHz is useless, of no benefit.
The article claims that 192KHz downloads are of no benefit. It's right there in the article's title. It's difficult to not accuse you of willfully misinterpreting his argument.
Of course it is acceptable. Even 14 bit audio at 36KHz with a great DAC would be fairly nice, acceptable.
What the article claims is that 192KHz is useless, of no benefit. And i contend that it is of benefit when you want more than just good or acceptable performance. Not if you have a run of the mill DAC and OK headphones/speakers, but it is if you are a music lover and critical listener.