This topic has been addressed ad nauseum for years. Yet, despite millions of folks who obviously DO hear and appreciate the increased fidelity of hi-res PCM and DSD, this kind of pseudoscience article continues to float around.
The primary fallacy they seem to share is that yes, we do not directly perceive whatever strawdog ultrahigh audible ranges are cited. But we humans do perceive and process to an astonishing degree the time domain of sound.
Mike Lavorgne has explained it well:
"The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
So higher sample rates used to process digital data into analog signals do not necessarily benefit frequency response, rather we're talking about improved performance in the time domain. Better transient response."
This is what improved "air" and the spatial perception of instruments from aural cues is all about. And yes, if you have the gear and setup, and right master files, 24/192 can do it better.
The primary fallacy they seem to share is that yes, we do not directly perceive whatever strawdog ultrahigh audible ranges are cited. But we humans do perceive and process to an astonishing degree the time domain of sound.
Mike Lavorgne has explained it well:
"The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!
So higher sample rates used to process digital data into analog signals do not necessarily benefit frequency response, rather we're talking about improved performance in the time domain. Better transient response."
This is what improved "air" and the spatial perception of instruments from aural cues is all about. And yes, if you have the gear and setup, and right master files, 24/192 can do it better.