Focus on 24/192 Misguided?.....

Poorly recorded and mastered music doesn't sound good at any sample/bit rate. Is that really surprising?

The referenced article is nonsense. Essentially he's saying the math is perfect and therefore nothing else is needed for better sound quality. Sony/Philips said the same thing back in the mid-1980s. Out of bandwidth induced noise is a problem in both digital and analog. It is something engineers are well aware and there are a multitude of solutions with proven track records. If an audio amplifier manufacturer said his new amp filtered out all audio above 20kHz would you consider it a serious high end oriented design? If you really take the article seriously we should all be using 32kHz/12bit digital because the math works perfectly at that level too.

And what's wrong with mathematically perfect response out to 16kHz? Most people, and certainly most middle age and older audiophiles' hearing doesn't go beyond 16kHz. FM doesn't go beyond 15kHz and at its best it's pretty damn good sounding. 12bit audio has a theoretical dynamic range of 72dB. That exceeds all but the most dedicated of audiophile rooms and systems. And if you increase the sampling rate above 32kHz won't you be introducing ultrasonic IM distortion?

44.1kHz/16bit is not needed. Done!

It no his arguments, but the conclusions he draws that takes him over the top.

Much of his argument is premised upon amplifier circuits not being able to handle ultra sonic signals cleanly. Do they still make high end electronics that can't handle a 100kHz signal?