Thanks RRod, sincerely, but I'm afraid that book is too much to my interest in DSP. Everything started listening to some old sixties music and now... I think is time for me to go back there. In 24/96 if I can... :-)  but as happy if I must do it in mp3, 128Kbs.

Regarding your comment "Nothing enlightening is being introduced to refute what has already been rigidly proven" you must consider this significative fact: 24bits and 96000 Hz are worldwide used. Without that fact I would not have started to doubt, nor tried to check myself the differences with...

But be trained to doubt is good for sound science too (As "my sound science case", win or lost, may end showing).

  (Mr, or Mrs) StanD, I'm afraid I have the same reasons to study that "Walsh Analysis" than you for studying concert piano. Anyhow, if you try studying Karl Popper, maybe you'll have even some more. That guy taught me to, orderly and respectfully, doubt.

Maybe now you're going to wish killing me (If not already before) because I'm going to give you a "magical" example to synthetize how I see this "FT thing": Imagine I use a telephone guide as a source of some thousand numbers and I reduce them to the range -32768 +32768. Then, if I apply a...

RRod, I've read your post, sorry I did not mention it but as I can not say up to what point "we have ways of reducing this issue" I didn't want to look like as critizicing somethiing which I do not know deeply enough.

I've posted twice instead of editing a detail. Sorry

Sorry, I've quoted wrong. This one is the post I should have quoted.

  Hi, I must say again that If I write about this topic here is because I think it is an interesting one but, please, the fact that my opinion is obviously different of the main forum opinion, does not mean that I have any intention of disturbing anybody with it in any way. Once this is said, I...

I'm not a math expert at all but I've always thought that this condition in Nyquist theorem: "Strictly speaking, it only applies to a class of mathematical functions whose Fourier transforms are zero outside of a finite region of frequencies" means that Nyquist theorem only applies to periodic...

Manbear, from my first post up to this one I had no intention of disturbing anybody but I'm afraid this idea is not correct:   "Nyquist applies to B in the exact same way it applies to A. There is no difference. Both are sounds with frequencies in the finite range of human hearing"

"arguments about the nature of an instrument are not relevant here" sounds to me like a strange dogma in a forum about musical sounds.

But my point is that natural musical sounds have natural instrument noise which should not be "killed"; Natural sounds are not sine wave forms; Not even perfect periodical sounds of any wave form

castleofargh: ... "I suggest you hold on your great math achievement about errors(didn't even try to see if it's the right value, that's how important it isn't to the topic), and try to read more about audio, how it works in our sound systems and how it works in our ears"... (Way too proud...

I'm not sure, that's all.

test equipment doesn't hear :-)

What I'm saying is that I'm not sure 15,6 parts per million sampling error is unaudible.

cjl, except for "inaudibly small" you are saying the same thing I'm saying

Yes, despite my english, you understood me correctly; And if I understand you, what you say is the same thing I say: The error would be equaly there on a flute solo or on the flute+bass duo as a proportional sum of each instrument error.

lamode, just to think about this, not to argue: The error I'm talking about (Which I repeat I'm not sure I can ear it, I just say that in some cases I "feel" differences) will happen too when an instrument A is strongly loud over other instrument B because in that case, the error will be mainly...

cjl, manbear, bigshot, RRod: Natural noise does not go inside nor outside any frecuency band because noise is not a periodic function.

I do not like to be boring so, I think this one will be my last post on this thread:   "In the field of digital signal processing, the sampling theorem is a fundamental bridge between continuous signals (analog domain) and discrete signals (digital domain). Strictly speaking, it only applies...

"...The part you're missing is that you can't hear the difference..." So, then you go back to the begining, I mean, you go to the "Seemingly Universal Law" of "If you hear differences you're bias dreaming" Well, I don't follow that law more than I can follow any other opinion; mine for...

  In the field of digital signal processing, the sampling theorem is a fundamental bridge between continuous signals (analog domain) and discrete signals (digital domain). Strictly speaking, it only applies to a class of mathematical functions whose Fourier transforms are zero outside of a...

I'm afraid I'm going to be a solitary voice on this forum (Or at least, on this my one and only thread) but I must tell you this: The misunderstanding about my opinion seems to be related to the use of the word "noise" because in real life there are as much kind of "noises" as there are sounds...