[KeithEmo]

That's fine.....

I just want to know, in the end, whether ANY INDIVIDUAL can tell the difference with an accuracy above statistical random.
(Because, if any individual can, then the binary form of the question - whether ANY HUMAN can hear the difference - will have been proven.)

As I've mentioned before, I personally have little interest in my own threshold..... (since I have no reason to believe that I represent the ultimate test subject).
And, since I'm not at all short of space or bandwidth, I have no reason whatsoever to expend the extra effort to use compression, especially with the added possibility that, at some point, it may do something audible.
(If I had space or bandwidth issues I might feel differently.)

I have multiple copies of the test in different random orders. Plus I want people to give me their ranking before they find out their results. That’s why I administer the test individually in PM.

This test is for individuals to determine their own personal thresholds. It’s not to generalize, but I will tell you that I’ve given this test a couple of dozen times and no one has been able to differentiate high bitrate lossy and lossless. Many can’t hear any real difference between any of the files.

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm pretty sure you're right..... and then we could discuss whether we were testing "hearing" or "perception".

As I think I mentioned before, I have a friend who works on ultrasonic plastic welding equipment.
He informs me that, if you're foolish enough to operate one of the ultrasonic welders we works on with its shielding open, the totally inaudible ultrasonic frequencies actually make your eyeballs ache.
That would clearly qualify as "perceptible".
(We might also discuss whether we might prefer that our audio system were UNABLE to reproduce those frequencies accurately at full volume.)

At 80dB I would think a human could perceive super audible frequencies. They couldn’t hear them, but they certainly could feel the headache it would probably create

 

[RRod]

We seem to be talking about different semantic interpretations here....

I tend to expect that any question I state will be considered USING THE CONDITIONS I INCLUDE AS PART OF THE QUESTION.
Therefore, if I ask: "What frequency range can a human hear at 80 dB SPL" then that's the information I want.
And, if I simply ask: "What frequency range can a human hear" then I'm opening that question to be considered under ALL possible conditions.

In other words, any question that fails to include specific conditions should be interpreted as a simple yes/no encompassing all possible conditions.

Too easy to lose such assumptions in oceans of text and tangential video discussion. Carry on then.

 

[Strangelove424]

About the only place uncompressed live video can be sourced is as a direct feed from a high end camera.
You can also find various samples of uncompressed computer rendered video (Google the publicly available renderings of the "Big Buck Bunny" cartoon).
Blu-Ray discs use h.264 compression; 4k UHD discs use h.265 (HEVC), which is more efficient, and is also often optimized to deliver a smoother looking picture, sometimes even at the expense of absolute sharpness.
Even the CinePro format, used on the higher-end GoPro cameras, is compressed.
(A few industry experts have suggested that we would have been better off using moving to HDR without bothering with 4k..... but they were apparently in a minority.)

So essentially no consumer content. Regarding 4k, the bandwidth required for atleast 4:2:2 easily exceeds most internet connections or even disc readers. Delivery technology would need to advance greatly on all fronts. There’s film cameras that can do 8k raw with HDR, but acquisition and delivery are two different beasts. Plenty of great cameras around, but still only so much space to deliver a movie on.

 

[bigshot]

[QUOTE="KeithEmo, post: 13847815, member: 403988"I just want to know, in the end, whether ANY INDIVIDUAL can tell the difference with an accuracy above statistical random.
(Because, if any individual can, then the binary form of the question - whether ANY HUMAN can hear the difference - will have been proven.)[/QUOTE]

Perception doesn't necessarily mean hearing. I'm sure high levels of ultra sonic sound could cause discomfort, but that isn't the same as *hearing* those frequencies. The general upper range of human hearing is 15kHz to 20kHz. with rare instances of very young people who can hear up to 23kHz. None of those frequencies contribute to audio quality in music however. Even if they exist in recorded music, you could do a roll off starting at 15kHz and I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference. They just aren't important in recorded music. The balance of frequencies through the core two octaves- 2kHz to 8kHz is MUCH more important. If you want music to sound good, that is the area to focus on.

 

[bigshot]

Going on and on about methodology, sort of makes things just worse.

It is pointless. Remember I have that comparison listening test standing by for you if you want to find out your own personal thresholds of perception for compression artifacting. Just shoot me a PM letting me know whether you want ALAC or FLAC.

 

[KeithEmo]

Basically you are correct..... although I would also point out that what we're really talking about is more limitations on "value to the consumer" rather than limitations on the technology itself.

For example, video streaming services are essentially limited to about 1/5 the bandwidth of a 4k UHD Blu-Ray disc.
However, that is not an absolute limit on the bandwidth available to distribute content.
For one thing, you can still buy a disc, although it will cost more, and entail a two day delay.
For another, you don't HAVE to stream video in real-time.
A new service named Vidity proposes to make 4k movies available for rent at full 4k Blu-Ray quality.
With Vidity you purchase a single empty hard disk.
Then, when you want to rent a movie, you request it a day in advance, and it is downloaded to your hard drive overnight.
You then watch it the next day.
(Because Vidity hasn't "taken off", even with the backing of several major studios, we must assume that most viewers prefer to watch in lower quality today rather than in higher quality tomorrow.)

So it is really consumers who have decided that they will NOT wait 12 hours in order to see that movie in better quality.
The technology sets the threshold, and defines the options, but the consumers still make the choice.
We COULD be watching uncompressed movies if enough consumers were willing to pay a little more, and tolerate a little more inconvenience, in order to do so.

As with most products, if ENOUGH customers were willing to pay ENOUGH, someone would sell it.

So essentially no consumer content. Regarding 4k, the bandwidth required for atleast 4:2:2 easily exceeds most internet connections or even disc readers. Delivery technology would need to advance greatly on all fronts. There’s film cameras that can do 8k raw with HDR, but acquisition and delivery are two different beasts. Plenty of great cameras around, but still only so much space to deliver a movie on.

 

[pinnahertz]

I disagree.....

If we ask: "Can humans hear 23 kHz?" then the answer is in fact a simple binary answer...... the answer is either "Yes" or "No".

No, it isn't and cannot be because you must also include the conditions in which a human can or cannot hear 23kHz. The answer would be "Yes, under these conditions:" or "No, under these conditions:" If you reduce everything to a binary answer you will miss the most important data completely, because you'll get a Yes, then, I assume, your designs and products will be adjusted to respond to a binary Yes.

You feel free to consider any number of other questions like:
"Can MOST humans hear the difference?"
"Is the difference SIGNIFICANT?"
"Does the presence or absence of 23 kHz affect the average person's appreciation of music?"

You're still trying for binary answers to multi-dimensional questions. You've ignored conditions completely.

or even
"What percentage of humans in each age group can hear 23 kHz?"

Getting closer, still ignoring other conditions.

or
"Is it worthwhile designing equipment to be accurate to 23 kHz because some humans can hear it?"

Possibly the most disturbing binary conclusion of all.

However, none of them obviates the original - and quite binary - question.
(Of course, the reverse is NOT true. If the answer to the original question turns out to be "No" then the other questions become moot.)

A binary answer to any of those will narrow the understanding of the problem to the extent that whatever solution is percieved as valid will effectively be the use of a pile driver to insert a thumb tack. That's not science or engineering.

As for perfect pitch, I simply offer it as an example of an ability that only a few humans have.
If a certain recording was off-speed, but only one in a million humans had perfect pitch accurate enough to notice the flaw in that recording, we would still have to report that "the flaw is audible to some humans".

No, actually the correct conclusion would be "the flaw is audible to one person in a million", then state the test conditions.

(And, in the binary case of the question, "the flaw is audible to humans".)
The fact that we can find millions of people who cannot hear it does NOT change that binary result.)

But the binary result is not useful, it's just pedantic. Good design cannot be arrived at using your binary method.

 

[bigshot]

For example, video streaming services are essentially limited to about 1/5 the bandwidth of a 4k UHD Blu-Ray disc.

It's hard to compare apples to apples with video because mastering differences can make a huge difference. But I found a direct comparison on Warner Archive Instant. I had the blu-ray of Billy Rose's Jumbo and Warner Archive had the exact same restoration on their streaming service. I set up a direct A/B switchable comparison between the blu-ray and streaming and couldn't tell the difference on my ten foot screen, even standing close. 4K really doesn't apply because most 4K movies are upscales anyway. Plus you would need a huge screen and sit very close to even gain the benefit of the added resolution.

 

[KeithEmo]

Science and engineering are different.
Science deals in facts while engineering, at least some of the time, deals in practicalities.
Engineering is about design; science is just about facts.

Therefore, as pure science, it is perfectly valid to question whether a thumb tack can be inserted with a pile driver.
(I suspect the answer is that, at least with some pile drivers, it is in fact quite possible.)
However, ENGINEERING might suggest that, even though it's possible, there are much more practical solutions.
Of course, with some subjects, there's a lot of overlap... and a lot of science doesn't get budgeted for research unless someone sees a practical aspect of the knowledge to be gained.

In this situation, the initial binary question serves as a sort of qualification for the more practical follow-on tests.
If we could prove that no human being could ever hear 23 kHz under any circumstances, then there would be no need to make more detailed tests.
We might even narrow that down and suggest that, if we could determine that no human could ever perceive 23 kHz under any conditions that weren't downright dangerous, we needn't test it in the context of listening to music.
However, if we find that even a few humans can hear it under some conditions which aren't totally excluded for safety reasons, then we move on to questions of practicality or usefulness.
You might be convinced that the experience of listening to music will never be improved by widening the frequency response of the recording... so let's find out for sure if you're always right.
However, I might be designing a new electronic toy for preschoolers, and be wondering if any of them might be annoyed by leakage of a small amount of 23 kHz power supply noise.
(Science makes no distinction; it simply provides pure information that each of us may then use for our own purposes.)

The correct answer to the initial question is simply: Yes, it is audible to some humans.
The next question is then: Which humans and under what conditions?
(Note that, if the answer to the first question was NO, then there would be no reason to ask the second question.)

And, yes, if you could determine, as a simple binary answer, that no human can ever hear 23 kHz, then we could quite usefully exclude the need for a frequency response extending to 23 kHz in our design specifications.
That would simplify our design goals, and probably save us a lot of money and effort.

​

No, it isn't and cannot be because you must also include the conditions in which a human can or cannot hear 23kHz. The answer would be "Yes, under these conditions:" or "No, under these conditions:" If you reduce everything to a binary answer you will miss the most important data completely, because you'll get a Yes, then, I assume, your designs and products will be adjusted to respond to a binary Yes.
You're still trying for binary answers to multi-dimensional questions. You've ignored conditions completely.
Getting closer, still ignoring other conditions.

Possibly the most disturbing binary conclusion of all.
A binary answer to any of those will narrow the understanding of the problem to the extent that whatever solution is percieved as valid will effectively be the use of a pile driver to insert a thumb tack. That's not science or engineering.
No, actually the correct conclusion would be "the flaw is audible to one person in a million", then state the test conditions.

But the binary result is not useful, it's just pedantic. Good design cannot be arrived at using your binary method.

 

[pinnahertz]

Science and engineering are different.
Science deals in facts while engineering, at least some of the time, deals in practicalities.
Engineering is about design; science is just about facts.

Therefore, as pure science, it is perfectly valid to question whether a thumb tack can be inserted with a pile driver.
(I suspect the answer is that, at least with some pile drivers, it is in fact quite possible.)
However, ENGINEERING might suggest that, even though it's possible, there are much more practical solutions.
Of course, with some subjects, there's a lot of overlap... and a lot of science doesn't get budgeted for research unless someone sees a practical aspect of the knowledge to be gained.

In this situation, the initial binary question serves as a sort of qualification for the more practical follow-on tests.
1. If we could prove that no human being could ever hear 23 kHz under any circumstances, then there would be no need to make more detailed tests.
We might even narrow that down and suggest that, if we could determine that no human could ever perceive 23 kHz under any conditions that weren't downright dangerous, we needn't test it in the context of listening to music.

2. However, if we find that even a few humans can hear it under some conditions which aren't totally excluded for safety reasons, then we move on to questions of practicality or usefulness.
You might be convinced that the experience of listening to music will never be improved by widening the frequency response of the recording... so let's find out for sure if you're always right.
However, I might be designing a new electronic toy for preschoolers, and be wondering if any of them might be annoyed by leakage of a small amount of 23 kHz power supply noise.
(Science makes no distinction; it simply provides pure information that each of us may then use for our own purposes.)

3. The correct answer to the initial question is simply: Yes, it is audible to some humans.
The next question is then: Which humans and under what conditions?
(Note that, if the answer to the first question was NO, then there would be no reason to ask the second question.)

4. And, yes, if you could determine, as a simple binary answer, that no human can ever hear 23 kHz, then we could quite usefully exclude the need for a frequency response extending to 23 kHz in our design specifications.
That would simplify our design goals, and probably save us a lot of money and effort.

1. But you cannot prove that no human could ever hear 23kHz under any circumstances unless you actually test every human being. It's just impractical and illogical to look at it that way. Even if you narrow down and limit your conditions the non-hazerdous, you still cannot prove the statement. This gets to the "science cannot prove anything" line of logic, which is of course equally flawed. Science can prove things if you carefully structure what it is you're trying to prove. The problem is the demand for a binary answer. It's neither necessary nor desirable, and obscures the total picture of the situation just as if you processed a full image down to only black a white. You'll clearly define black and white, but won't see anything between. That is data reduction, and that should not really anyone's goal.

2. Now you're focussing on the conditions I was getting at, and will return more useful data. That was my point: include the conditions, get more of a trend than a binary answer, and respond to that information.

3. Again, this is exactly my point: include the conditions. You can never get a NO to the first question because you cannot practically test all humans. That makes it the wrong question to ask, with easily misconstrued conclusions.

4. You can still get a useful answer even if it's not binary. I'm sure your engineers would agree, and don't design for the extreme edges of the bell curve anyway. At least I hope so (doubting everything now, though). You could also bump the frequency up and come closer to a binary answer, but demanding a binary answer, well, that's hardly applied science.

 

[KeithEmo]

I agree entirely that mastering makes a major difference.
It's also well known that some differences are deliberate... for example, commercial videos often avoid certain colors, because the producers know that those colors tend not to come out well on consumer television sets.
Therefore, rather than risk their disc displaying inconsistently on different sets, the mastering engineer deliberately alters those colors to avoid causing problems on certain monitors.
(Look for scenes on commercial DVDs where there is any item colored bright saturated purple...... I can easily render that color on my computer screen - but TVs that follow the NTSC standard have trouble with it.)

If I were to set out to actually compare, I would start with an actual master original, encode it using several different CODECs, then compare each to the original.
(I'm assuming that the goal is not "to produce a copy that looks good" but "to produce a copy that cannot be distinguished from the original" or at least "a copy that is as close as I can get to the original".)

I've also found that, with video, and almost certainly because the processing that is applied in video compression tends to be quite complex, the errors seem to usually consist of specific types of artifacts.
One common artifact is that smooth color gradations on single-color objects, like a red marble, tend to become banded or posterized (banding is often present on copies and totally absent on the original).
Another common artifact is that gentle motion in dark areas tends to be lost. In one particular movie, in a particular scene, slow swirling in some dark clouds was clearly visible on an analog VHS copy, but totally missing from the DVD copy.
In many movies, if the original was made on actual film, there is a characteristic film grain in dark areas of the image, which is totally absent from some copies.
(The reason this occurs is well known. Random tape noise interferes with efficient compression, so filtering is applied to low level noise to remove it before the video is encoded. The filtering also sometimes removes low level random noise that belongs there.)
Also, even in high quality digital video, you often see blotching that follows square boundaries - where several pixels of similar color have been forced to the same color, creating an artificial seam where that zone touches one of a different color.
(It's painfully obvious because gradations in nature rarely follow areas with sharp vertical and horizontal boundaries. h.265 has improved this by introducing more variations outside of the large square boundaries used by h.264.)
These are all flaws which individually aren't usually "glaring" or "obvious" - but are easy to pick out if you look for them - and easy to notice by their absence on the original when you look there for comparison.

Note that the stated goal of most perceptual encoding is for the picture to "look natural" rather than specifically to be identical to the original.....
If we were discussing audio using the same ideas, we would say that the goal is for it to sound good rather than to be accurate to the original.
(And we would probably say that the artifacts in h.265 are not only less than those in h.264, but they are more euphonic and less dissonant.)

And, yes, many current 4k movies are upscaled from an original that was filmed and/or processed at 2k....but not all.
If you want good samples to use for comparison.... check out some of the 4k demo videos from vendors like Sony and LG.
There are a few websites dedicated to demos (LG has one of a garden which is very impressive.)
Sadly, as usual, commercial movies rarely if ever live up to the capabilities of the standard - at least so far.

It's hard to compare apples to apples with video because mastering differences can make a huge difference. But I found a direct comparison on Warner Archive Instant. I had the blu-ray of Billy Rose's Jumbo and Warner Archive had the exact same restoration on their streaming service. I set up a direct A/B switchable comparison between the blu-ray and streaming and couldn't tell the difference on my ten foot screen, even standing close. 4K really doesn't apply because most 4K movies are upscales anyway. Plus you would need a huge screen and sit very close to even gain the benefit of the added resolution.

 

[KeithEmo]

Absolutely agreed...... but where we seem to disagree is simply in where I'm willing to accept something as "close enough not to matter".
I agree with you that very few humans can probably hear 23 khz.
However, given that possibility, and the current standards, I'd rather record a file at 96k and risk wasting a little space, rather than record it at 44.1k and risk causing some minor difference that a few people can hear.
(For the same reason that people go to museums to see great paintings instead of "very good copies".)
As I mentioned in another post, it also relaxes the design requirements on the DAC, which improves the chances that a DAC at a given price point will perform better with that copy.

Another important factor is whether you consider your recordings as "something to listen to" or as "your own personal archival masters".
I consider mine to be the latter.......

I'm going to give you an example where a recording made at 192k will definitely work as intended and one recorded at 44.1k definitely will not.
(I've avoided this so far because it is clearly a very specific situation - which does not apply to most listeners.)

Back in the days of vinyl, one of the problems that annoyed many of us was those ticks and pops you hear when the cartridge plays over a scratch.
Even with the best possible cleaning and care, it is often impossible to eliminate or avoid every single tick on a record.
Back when vinyl was a current technology, several companies devised electronic devices for removing ticks from records.
They operated on the principle that record ticks contain a lot of ultrasonic content.
They analyzed the spectrum of the record as it was playing, designated any short abrupt sound with excess ultrasonic content as a "tick", and muted it (or replaced it with a split second of delayed content from nearby).
Some of these devices worked pretty well (Garrard had one that was well known.)
Now, if you were to record a vinyl album, in perfect quality, at a 44k sample rate, and then apply one of these devices to your recording.... it wouldn't work - because your recording has failed to capture the ultrasonic information the device needs to operate.
However, if you applied it to a recording made at 192k, it would work as intended - because your recording would include that ultrasonic information.
(I'm guessing that the digital methods used by some editing software works much the same way.)
Would this ever matter to you or me?
Probably not.
But why take the chance and discard information that is present in the original and MIGHT be useful later?
(You can always convert to a lower sample rate later, but you cannot get back information once you discard it.)

When I make a live recording, I keep a copy of the original, even if I edit it later, or make a "use copy" at a lower sample rate.
After all, I may choose to do a better edit later, or using software that allows me to do things I can't do now.
I tend to look at all music the same way.
If I have the opportunity, I prefer to have the best possible copy available, even if I don't expect to need it, or to hear the difference under the conditions I plan to use it.
(Note that we're talking about paying an extra $5 for a high-res download instead of a regular one..... not paying someone $5k to steal a copy of the studio master for my collection.)

1. But you cannot prove that no human could ever hear 23kHz under any circumstances unless you actually test every human being. It's just impractical and illogical to look at it that way. Even if you narrow down and limit your conditions the non-hazerdous, you still cannot prove the statement. This gets to the "science cannot prove anything" line of logic, which is of course equally flawed. Science can prove things if you carefully structure what it is you're trying to prove. The problem is the demand for a binary answer. It's neither necessary nor desirable, and obscures the total picture of the situation just as if you processed a full image down to only black a white. You'll clearly define black and white, but won't see anything between. That is data reduction, and that should not really anyone's goal.

2. Now you're focussing on the conditions I was getting at, and will return more useful data. That was my point: include the conditions, get more of a trend than a binary answer, and respond to that information.

3. Again, this is exactly my point: include the conditions. You can never get a NO to the first question because you cannot practically test all humans. That makes it the wrong question to ask, with easily misconstrued conclusions.

4. You can still get a useful answer even if it's not binary. I'm sure your engineers would agree, and don't design for the extreme edges of the bell curve anyway. At least I hope so (doubting everything now, though). You could also bump the frequency up and come closer to a binary answer, but demanding a binary answer, well, that's hardly applied science.

 

[bigshot]

Absolutely agreed...... but where we seem to disagree is simply in where I'm willing to accept something as "close enough not to matter".

You're free to accept or not accept whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you could hear it, and it isn't terribly good advice for other people either. But if it makes you happy, go crazy!

 

[pinnahertz]

1. Absolutely agreed...... but where we seem to disagree is simply in where I'm willing to accept something as "close enough not to matter".
I agree with you that very few humans can probably hear 23 khz.
However, given that possibility, and the current standards, I'd rather record a file at 96k and risk wasting a little space, rather than record it at 44.1k and risk causing some minor difference that a few people can hear.
(For the same reason that people go to museums to see great paintings instead of "very good copies".)
As I mentioned in another post, it also relaxes the design requirements on the DAC, which improves the chances that a DAC at a given price point will perform better with that copy.

2. Another important factor is whether you consider your recordings as "something to listen to" or as "your own personal archival masters".
I consider mine to be the latter.......

3. I'm going to give you an example where a recording made at 192k will definitely work as intended and one recorded at 44.1k definitely will not.
(I've avoided this so far because it is clearly a very specific situation - which does not apply to most listeners.)

Back in the days of vinyl, one of the problems that annoyed many of us was those ticks and pops you hear when the cartridge plays over a scratch.
Even with the best possible cleaning and care, it is often impossible to eliminate or avoid every single tick on a record.
Back when vinyl was a current technology, several companies devised electronic devices for removing ticks from records.
They operated on the principle that record ticks contain a lot of ultrasonic content.
They analyzed the spectrum of the record as it was playing, designated any short abrupt sound with excess ultrasonic content as a "tick", and muted it (or replaced it with a split second of delayed content from nearby).
Some of these devices worked pretty well (Garrard had one that was well known.)
Now, if you were to record a vinyl album, in perfect quality, at a 44k sample rate, and then apply one of these devices to your recording.... it wouldn't work - because your recording has failed to capture the ultrasonic information the device needs to operate.
However, if you applied it to a recording made at 192k, it would work as intended - because your recording would include that ultrasonic information.
(I'm guessing that the digital methods used by some editing software works much the same way.)
Would this ever matter to you or me?
Probably not.
4. But why take the chance and discard information that is present in the original and MIGHT be useful later?
(You can always convert to a lower sample rate later, but you cannot get back information once you discard it.)

5. When I make a live recording, I keep a copy of the original, even if I edit it later, or make a "use copy" at a lower sample rate.
After all, I may choose to do a better edit later, or using software that allows me to do things I can't do now.
I tend to look at all music the same way.
If I have the opportunity, I prefer to have the best possible copy available, even if I don't expect to need it, or to hear the difference under the conditions I plan to use it.
(Note that we're talking about paying an extra $5 for a high-res download instead of a regular one..... not paying someone $5k to steal a copy of the studio master for my collection.)

1. But now you've drifted away from the question of can anyone hear 23kHz! This is an entirely new question that must include: is there music-realated content above 23kHz, is it audible in the presence of music, can it be captured and passed unaltered through the entire signal chain to the listener's ears? That last one appears to be a big NO, as reproducing ultrasonics with speakers in rooms plus propagation issues pretty much negates the possibility. But those are all different questions that have nothing to do with the first.

2. No recording represents the original event anyway, but how you consider your recordings is entirely psychological and has nothing to do with actual and real perception as it's pre-loaded with a payload of bias.

3. Nice example, and funny because I am actually intimately familiar with several of those devices, including the Burwen TNE-7000 and the SAE-5000. But you clearly are not familiar with current software equivalent solutions for those problems, which actually do work just fine at 44.1! The detection algorithms used in those early hardware devices had to be very basic, with relatively rudimentary ultrasonic filtering of an L-R signal. Software is not limited in the same ways, and works fine even with the limits of 44.1kHz. Additionally, several of the current declicker software options include many controls that vary the intensity of declick action offering the ability to tune the process to specific problems. Add to all of that the process of capturing a "noise print" and applying noise reduction. None of that was available on the analog devices of the past, and guess what? The new processes work much, much better! And all without that extended ultrasonic response to deal with. Though having ultrasonic content might help in this specific situation in some cases, 192kHz would be completely unnecessary given the actual transient speed of a click and the current detection methods. Sorry, your example doesn't work.

4. Because we do know the actual bandwidth of the noise and signal of vinyl, and 192kHz is completely unnecessary for dealing with either. Most vinyl was recorded on analog tape which has a remarkably sharp HF rolloff characteristic (yeah, only those of us who have maintained those machines realize that), and very little ultrasonic content other than distortion products. No need to capture 96kHz bandwidth.

5. Anyone dealing with recording professionally, or even as an amatuer, keeps the original unaltered, either via back or nondestructive editing or both. The error here is assuming high sampling rates = "better", when it more often means you've captured more noise but no more audio.