Originally Posted by kraken2109
Rewording my post since it was misunderstood and deleted.
I personally believe that 'high definition audio' and all those who sell it claiming it is audibly different is, like many things in audio, simply a scam. I would loved to be proved wrong with some actual evidence, but at the moment all the evidence supports this view. I apologise if this upsets anyone, but this board is sound science and I know I'm not alone in this belief.
I personally believe (If I might borrow your formula?) that there is no such thing as "high definition," or "High Resolution" audio.
These are not technical terms. There is sample rate, and there is bit depth. The rest is invented by a collusion of marketing departments and tongues-out "audiophiles" that luuuurve those words.
More: High-bit-rate is a spin too. It is intended to make people think of their 44/48 as "low." It is not low. Low-bit-rate might have been there in the telephone industry, decades ago. Higher might be accurate, even 44.2 is higher thatn 44.1, but, hey, it won't achieve the double marketing wammy of being saleable and making people discontent with what they have.
Does that mean that 16-bit, 44.1khz, is the bee's-knees-ultimate in music reproduction and should be set in stone as perfect for ever and cancel any other research? No, absolutely not. One day, PCM and DSD might seem as old-fashioned as a shellac 78rpm record does today. Who knows what will be discovered and developed in the future!
Further more, when I listen to audio scientists (some of whom love music too) they tell that, no, 44.1/16 is not ultimate. Sure it covers the entire audio frequency range, and just about all the entire dynamic range from fff to ppp, but there is more to it than that. There is the implementation of the filtering and reconstruction circuits. 48 is better, and some say 60 would have been ideal. 60, of course, is one standard that no-one gives us!
I'd like to be able to say, my understanding is and mean it... but I'm a maths dunce, formulae make my eyes spin, and this is deeply mathematical stuff, so don't ask me to explain or justify this. The best I could do is point to the contributions of some people on other forums.
Anyway, in the loose meaning of the phrase, my understanding is... that 48.1 is just fine but not perfect, 48 is better, 60 would be good (but we are not offered it anyway), but the reasoning is nothing to do with the usual misunderstanding of sample rates, and just climbing the ladder of bigger numbers is senseless, except to the sales departments.