There are a few "audiophile" sample sites out there that record their instrument samples at 192khz. They sell the raw version at 192khz, and downsampled version at 44.1khz. They say they used Wavelab6's crystal resampler to downsample. Their 192khz editions pretty much have to be resampled by the end user for every project.

My question is, are commerical resamplers today (expensive ones like Wavelab 6), pretty much all transparent today?

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Are these comparisons of theoretical value only?

I'm not going to attempt to answer this from a purely engineering perspective because my knowledge is rusty. It deals with Nyquist's theorem. 44.1 is a standard for a reason based on that theorem. I have the gut feeling that these companies are purposely trying to be esoteric. Personally, I wouldn't use samples like that unless I was purposefully trying to impress you with my own sense of esoteriosity. It is very possible, even from a theoretical perspective that downsampling 192khz to 44.1 khz would introduce aliasing, and would require a low pass filter to get rids of aliasing artifacts.
From wikipedia concerning Nyquist's theorem:
"When a signal is downsampled, the sampling theorem can be invoked via the artifice of resampling a hypothetical continuous-time reconstruction. The Nyquist criterion must still be satisfied with respect to the new lower sampling frequency in order to avoid aliasing. To meet the requirements of the theorem, the signal must usually pass through a low-pass filter of appropriate cutoff frequency as part of the downsampling operation. This low-pass filter, which prevents aliasing, is called an anti-aliasing filter."

Whether or not ALL resamplers are 'transparent' I cannot answer....but highly doubt.

Personally, I would stick with 44.1......unless I got a wild hair and wanted to impress you with my self important sense of audiophile esoteriosity....and wanted to market a project as such. My two cents, in layman's terms.....use your ears. Most people couldn't tell the difference anyway....and I can almost guarantee that.

Thanks for the reply. But libraries like the Vienna symphonic are recorded at 96khz, years ago and downsampled to 44.1. They are selling 44.1 editions for a cheaper price, which they said was downsampled by crystal resampler that comes with Wavelab6.

Go for it then. I suppose it depends on the market the company is trying to reach. If it is classical audiophile there must be a reason. It's out of the realm of what I want to deal with. A lot of street level artists like grungy sounds anyway, and sampling rates that high would offer nothing. It is esoteriosity for the sake of esoteriosity. IMO.

[edit] The point is...it all winds up on a 44.1khz standard disc. Until a higher khz standard is released, the point is moot. You will not be able to hear the difference and the industry at large...knows it; because they understand Nyquist's theroem...better than you or I.
That being said, bit depth is an entirely different issue and the higher the bit depth of recorded samples, the better. Recording in 24 bit or 32 bit float gives you enormously more head room..ie..dynamic response over 16 bit. Recording at sample rates over 44.1khz is technically possible and even common; but only beneficial....if only....humans had better ears. It deals with the laws of physics...in particular, the limitations of the human hearing mechanism itself.

It's not that I have misunderstood the premise of your post. You were basically asking if all resamplers are the same. I would say no they are not. Wavelab is a quality product. I went off on a rant and I somewhat apologize. I thought about the issue a little bit more.
Here it is in a nutshell:
If there are companies with good sounding samples, they sound good for reasons other than being sampled at 96khz or even 192khz. The mics they use, the room, the instruments themselves, the player, the integrity of the signal chain especially the mic preamps and the quality of the console they used...etc. They could have done just as good a job if they had been sampled at 44.1khz because of the laws of physics, all things being equal. The fact that they recorded them at high samples rates adds nothing practical...no matter what they would have us believe. You can make a crappy recording at 192khz, and you can make an excellent recording at 44.1khz. because of all the other things that happen with all the other variables. If they offer their excellent sounding samples downsampled to 44.1khz, why would you want to attempt to downsample them yourself? They have already done the work for you.

....and "esoteriosity"? There. I invented a new word. :wink_smile:

For you "professionals", are the downsampling works done by the samplemakers like Eastwest good enough?

Eastwest samples should sound tremendous. They are using 64bit depth technology. Oversampling has nothing to do with it. There are scores of hard core high paid professionals who will absolutely agree.