MOTM

> But if you sampled a 10khz sine and a 10khz square wave, it'll still
> come out exactly the same.

This is just another way of saying that the maximum frequency represented
is 10kHz.

> Having a higher sampling rate will yield
> better/closer to the original results, which was the point of the
> original post IIRC.

If the human ear can't hear anything above 20kHz, then it makes no
difference at all if a 15kHz square wave looks better on the scope sampled
at 96kHz. (It'll only look a little better, anyway.)

I don't really have a strong opinion about whether 96kHz sounds better
than 44.1, except in the context of audio processing. I just didn't agree
with your statement about the Nyquist theorem.