Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?

Quote: (partial) "There has been an industry trend towards sampling rates well beyond the basic requirements: such as 96 kHz and even 192 kHz[7] This is in contrast with laboratory experiments, which have failed to show that ultrasonic frequencies are audible to human observers. "
Comment:    Whoa!  None of this is done to reproduce ultrasonic frequencies. In fact the analog filters remove them as best they can. It is done so that the analog filters can be lower-order and more phase-correct, and/or to allow them to BETTER remove the ultrasonic frequencies (which exist, whether you like it or not in a stepped eave out of a DAC) more completely. Heck, read the app notes from any major DAC provider like TI/Burr Brown and see the noise after their reconstruction filters. not so good you will find. But with proper up sampling, we move the noise higher making it easier to filter.
It is these partial truths that continue the crazy arguments between engineers trying to make better sound and audiophiles that are being a) confused and b) sold stuff that does not sound as good as it otherwise might.
Rant off.

@itsjustme

These make really critical mis-assumptions about what is going on in up sampling.
First, go learn about up-sampling and interpolation filters. Then learn about reconstruction filters and their issues. Then think about how much better you make things if you first interpolate and then feed it to the reconstruction filter. Lots of analog issues get much easier.
It need not change the original data one bit (both literally and figuratively)

Look at the measurements for any non-MQA compatible DAC, all their filters shouldn’t attenuate any frequencies you can hear, especially from companies such as Chord, and any phase errors are going to be in the treble where it won’t be audible on any decent DAC.

Also, if you are upsampling to a non-multiple (44.1 to 192) it no longer is bit-perfect, and the rounding errors would need to be minimized by the DAC/software.

I’ve yet to see any actual benefit to upsampling when disregarding any limitations by the DAC used.

Wow, this is getting out of hand in breadth and how fast it progresses. Someone commented on what i said (quoted me) and then went on to speak of Chord DACs having the best filtering they knew of. It **appeared** that they were using it to counter my argument that up/over sampling helps with the filtering.
Let me be clear:  Chord over/up samples.  Their data stream runs at 104 mHz/mbps - far, far, far above the raw output of redbook ( around 1.5 mbps).
Their sound is not all due to filtering either.  They pay special attention to timing and jitter (as one must, since the reconstruction filter integrates over the sample value and the time).
They further use a different method to get the analog pulses (flip-flops, let's not go down that art-hole) that has some claimed advantages.
But it in NO WAY counters what I wrote.
But with the loose writing here it difficult to even understand what point people are trying to make.
G

@itsjustme 
 
I know the Chord upsamples, so does the Benchmark, and so do many others, I’m specifically referring to upsampling before the DAC. DACs do this as it helps with jitter, doing this before the DAC doesn’t help.

mzkmxcv381 posts
It is abundantly clear that this chap has NOT experienced upsampling and is spouting verbage about measurements he does not understand anyway and he gains satisfaction from writing and seeing his own words in print that have NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE. Can he please desist from irritating sensible people who DO know what they are talking about and have EXTENSIVE listening experiences of the benefits. Can we have a rule on this forum that if you have not tried DO NOT MAKE SPURIOUS comments on those who HAVE, disputing their ears and findings.