I don't think I was clear in my first post. When I said 99 out of 100 people would believe the article without question, it was in a mainstream context, not audiophile. If an average person read that article they're likely to believe because it sounds convincing. You really can't fault them for in either, because they just don't know. That's a huge problem for high res audio because the misinformation contained in articles like this closes the door.
"Is it possible that for 9,999 out of 10,000 there isn't an audible difference with high resolution files?"
Yes, but there's different reasons as to why people end up in the 99.
"Maybe the article is good advice for the vast majority."
How so? If the vast majority of people don't have all the facts, I can't see how that would be good.
"Is it possible that the difference that some find to be audible is a result of differences in the hardware or software used to play the high resolution files?"
Absolutely. And that's a major point. If people dismiss high res, the chances of them getting their hands on better audio gear are very low.
"Claims of superiority among CD players are common so comparing different circuitry and signal paths used to play different resolution files will always be apples and oranges at some level."
I agree that its not exact, so you would need to look at general trends.
"Is it impossible for a high resolution capable source to sound inferior to a standard resolution source?"
No, its not impossible. In fact, people get results like all the time. Its easy to find a standard res sources that sound better than a high res source.
"Why then can we assume that the high resolution is superior without question?"
If you're looking at the music files themselves, I don't see how high res could be inferior. That's not the issue. Equipment and setup would be the cause for inferior sound. (assuming everyone has the same taste.
