*same*step-transition (presumably from a square wave), but sampled at two different sampling rates.

The whole premise of Shannon-Nyquist sampling is that we can

*perfectly*reconstruct a band-limited signal after sampling. Hence, it makes sense to reason that

*for all intents and purposes, it remains very much the same signal*, no matter where and how many sampling points we are placing, as long as the sampling is dense enough to avoid aliasing.

So the "perfectly" interpolated curve is really what matters and any change in the ripples of the interpolated curve when changing the sampling rate is always the result of an error term in the resampling process. On the other hand, if the interpolated curve remains the same, it really doesn't matter what the samples look like. For example, fractional delays will change the "ripple" in the samples, but if you add more fractional delay until it becomes an integer again, you'll be back to the original (because the underlying signal didn't change, the sampling grid just moved in time), except for potential error terms of a practical implementation.

You might want to treat the samples as impulses during the resampling process, there is nothing wrong with that. But when a WAV file is loaded into a DAW, the samples contained in the wavefile are very much not impulses, but rather just values of a band-limited signal that we have stored and which we intend reproduce again at playback (even though the whole DAC process will probably go through a couple of steps, changing the signal on the way, but that's implementation detail; eventually we still want to get at close to as possible to the original signal)... and I would assume

*that*is also what Z1202 is trying to point out.