Can you hear bit rate?

I think the original question about "bit rate" implied the sampling rate, as opposed to the number of bits used to encode the analog input signal.

According to Nyquist, you need at a minimum two samples per cycle at the highest frequency of interest. This is a minimum and doesn't imply that you will get a quality reproduction. The Red Book CD standard at 44.1 kHz, was barely above the minimum. The problem with it was that the recording needed to have very steep cutoff (brick-wall) filters to prevent "aliasing" distortion. The higher the sampling rate, the more gradual the anti-aliasing filters can be, and the better that is for preserving the phase relationship between the different harmonics of the instruments. Therefore, in my opinion, all else being equal (which is usually not the typical case), the higher sampling rates are better.

Since digitizing is just one of myriad ways in which the signal can be adversely affected, not all recordings will appear to have benefitted from higher sampling rates, but when all else is equal, they will benefit from it.

Also, in the same vein, the more the number of bits used to encode the analog input, the better; however, in my opinion the sampling rate is the bigger "bang for the buck". For the number of bits, anything above 24 may be wasted bandwidtth.

Well, sorry for the confusion, but with either interpretation I think we've had some excellent replies. 

@erik_squires 

Bit rate = bit depth * number of channels * sample rate

It would hardly challenge anyone with two working ears to tell the difference between mono and 2-channel stereo (double the bit rate).

Equally it is blindingly obvious when surround sound and immersive sound come into play.  But of course, you need more hardware for that.  Music-centered magazines like Gramophone extol the quality of some immersive recordings, which are also over-represented at Grammy awards.  Equipment-focused magazines like TAS and Stereophile pin 2-channel to their mastheads and resolutely ignore these advances in sound quality, encouraging their readers to spend thousands on power cords instead.

@richardbrand 

Immersive sound is attractive, but how will it avoid the fate of quadraphonic sound in the 70s?

@erik_squires wrote:

So, apologies, I meant to ask: Can you hear differences as the sample rate or bit depth changes?  

That's actually how I understood it (falsely, going by your OP), but thanks for clarifying. With changes in bit depth and sample rate (one usually follows the other) there appears to be changes in the mastering as well (here as well: one usually follows the other), so I guess it comes down to this: do I appreciate the overall outcome of high-res versions over their Red Book iteration(s)? Well, it depends. Years ago, with the exception of the Norwegian 2L label, I often if not mostly had a preference for the CD versions in finding quite a few high-res dittos to be dynamically stale and downright flat sounding. Today I still prefer many Red Book versions, but there are an increasing number of great sounding remastered high-res titles as well (mostly compared through Qobuz). All told though I can't say for certain whether my sonic preference for a given title comes down to its mastering and/or higher bit depth and sample rate.