No it was accurate and there are decidedly 2 camps of thought. People who go by measurements and others who listen for differences. (blind or not)
Wrong. One camp trust science and double blind listening tests to prove theories. The other camp trust whatever they perceive in subjective listening tests, then claim it as a truth.
Proving the existence of the audible differences between a 44Hz file and the same file correctly upsampled to 384kHz is quick and easy for anyone 100% sure hearing it. All it takes is Foobar and its ABX plugin then doing the exact same thing than in a subjective listening test, ie differentiating the two files by their sound. After that, if you still hear it trusting your ears and only your ears, not your eyes, you can post the two files, your log and your audio hardware used, and the question is resolved for anybody on the planet. If ONE person proves it, the matter is settled, end of the debate, more time to listen to music instead of bickering on forums.
The whole test would take 2 hours tops, including posting the results, less time that doing a YouTube video. But noone among the believers in that theory cared to do one, if any to prove himself he was right. No hobbyist, no "expert", no professional. Nobody, in all the years that belief has been going on, just like any other audio belief.
Obviously, I don't care if Steven was to add this feature, I just wouldn't use it, no harm done. I was just irritated by "I still see that 192kHz is the maximum in 2022
". Like MB was crippled or late in the audiophile race for higher/bigger is better. Will some people absolutely need 768kHz in 5 years? Coming from people dismissing measures is pretty ironic, when the whole topic is about kilohertz .