Right, Patanjali, and I’m with you there, but this discussion about higher sample rates strongly remind me of “EUR 5,000.- audio cables” and “Argentum nitricum D12”.
It’s not that I would not be open to meaningful evidence, quite the opposite, but it’s basic logic which dictates for me that it’s pointless to go higher than something like 44.1 kHz of sampling rate. This opinion is based on where science stands. We would actually need different mathematics and physics (or biology, if you want to debate human ability to perceive beyond 20 kHz!), not just updates or errata.
There is a difference between “reason allows for something to be valid, even if the probability is low” (if this was the case here, I’d all be “go 96 kHz, just to be on the safe side, should science find out that there IS something”!) and “this is utter nonsense and has nothing to do with reality at all” (which is what is the case here - given high quality LPFs… I totally agree that low quality LPFs may cause horrible differences in sample rates, but this has nothing to do with “Nyquist being invalid” or something similar).
I’d rather investigate IF and WHY there are filter differences between sample rates in some cases… I’m not one of the tinfoil hat guys, but there may be economic interest behind that. 