High resolution music, page 1

It's weird that there is this big debate about  high definition music. High definition music is reported to be able to reproduce sounds that scientific tests have demonstrated are out of humans hearing range. Just like we can not see the ultra violet frequencies of light. We have not had a need to.

There was also a double blind test done (where neither the researcher or listener new in advance which standard of music was playing,High definition or CD quality.Basically the results showed over a period of many tests that people were just guessing 50/50. They could not tell the difference. I also know that I find it difficult to tell the difference between a 320 kbit mp3 and a higher information flac music file.  

What do you think. Nonsense or based on fact?.

I know I like good quality audio reproduction. That's why I like electronic music.

To my ears electronic music is High resolution music.

Too many variables. First, the listener must have a trained musical ear to hear the difference. Second, other than the file truly being lossless, there is a need for good headphones and a good system.
After all of those criteria is met, then the difference can be heard, and in most situations there really isnt that great of a difference. Although with my good headphones and some good FLAC files, I sometimes hear frequencies that I never had heard before!
There really shouldn't be a debate, frequencies have been studied and analyzed. But like art, you need to know what you are looking for and at the end Music is about the listener enjoying themselves.

Kind of went off topic there...

"First, the listener must have a trained musical ear to hear the difference"

The scientific  blind test showed no significance difference  between people whom had a trained musical ear and those that did not with the scope of the test (Being able to hear HD or not). Like I said, the results clearly showed that humans were all guessing.
Like spinning a coin and guessing heads or tails,over enough results they  normalise and will be 50/50. Demonstrating that nobody can tell the future. Well at least the future outcome of spinning a coin. Though many people seem to be bias in believing they can accurately predict a spin coin (i.e- they believe their not guessing) thus will deny any test that conflicts with their preconceived bias.

"Too many variables.First,other than the file truly being lossless, there is a need for good headphones and a good system."

It was a scientific test. i.e- all the independent variables were controlled so to not bias the results. For example, The same music sources,the same audio system etc etc.

"There shouldn't be a debate"

So you think it's acceptable for individuals to make money from  people  by  proclaiming certain things as "facts". Like the HD standard audio (above 44.1 kHz) is a more enjoyable musical experience than CD standard audio (44.1 kHz).

When all the evidence suggests people can not sense this difference. And some scientists say HD audio may have more introduce more distortion because it is in introducing frequencies that may negatively effect the frequencies we can hear.

Of course we should have a debate. Critical debates in which all the background noise is debunked as just that,noise. So we can make factual based choice.

Edit: I apologise .I should refer/link to some of the actual audio tests carried out (citations linked to evidence).

I will post some later when I have the time. For those whom are interested in the strongest evidence, even if it's not what they want it to be.

"at the end Music is about the listener enjoying themselves."

Well one of two statements in that sentence are self evident.

People do enjoy music