That is mathematically correct. The "high def" master carries no more audible information than a 16/44.1 CD quality data stream. Additional bit depth (24 vs 16) increases the signal to noise ratio. The higher sample rate increases the maximum frequency that can be reproduced, but 44.1 kHz covers the human audible range already.
While risking to sound esotheric here,
imagine a world - a forest, a seashore, a city - filtered down to 16/44.1
I'm sure this would be a rather dull place.
Great cymbals, a trumpet, violin or soprano sax produce harmonic content well above 20kHz, up to 100kHz to be precise. While they can not be heard by definition, they can be perceived by humans. While I have no proof for this at all, I had the pleasure to rehearse and perform with a wide range of exceptional instrumentalists during the last 25 years. I never heard a CD recording that came in the slightest close to the real thing, though.
To be fair, the majority of productions doesn't try to reflect the (the sometimes shocking
) reality of real instruments, but much rather a producer's or band's take on it, and what they want to offer for
at-home listening. Instruments or vocals will often be highly disfigured, as an artistic choice. All too many times I've witnessed showcases of high end gear where at some point the seller jumped up saying Do you hear
this sax?!, and it became obvious to me that this person has probably never heard a saxophone in real life.
Music at home will always be an image of music, and no matter which style (
true acoustic recordings, or the most artificial electronic music, where probably no real-life counterpart even exists
), some productions paint a rather low res picture while other producers and engineers aim to put more on their canvas. In my own experience, these are the people who not only work in 24/96+, but also make their music (or their remasters) available at full resolution. They do it because they are proud of their products and because they know it can't be reproduced in the same way @16/44. These people are no mere
believers, they are highly trained listeners, sometimes even with what they (or others!) call golden ears.
Interestingly, some of the first high res masters I've acquired where free additions to quality vinyl releases. To me, this prooves a/ the engineers are really proud of their job and b/ a SACD or DVD-A copy is really cheap to make and add as a freebie! (Bowie, Ziggy Stardust or Talk Talk, Spirit of Eden vinyl reissues are recent examples from the pop business).
There's no doubt that we will see a lot of smart people making a lot of money in years to come only based on stating higher numbers and claiming it has to be better just because of that. Also, I'm convinced that high res audio doesn't make sense for everyone, if only for the fact that we need a certain equipment to enjoy the difference, let alone the attitude or will. However, I'm convinced there
is a difference. It takes a good production to make it audible, just as much as it takes a good way of re-production. I think Apples involement can have an impact only by giving a larger platform to producers who actually care. I know many of them.
Long rant, I hope there's a certain point in this. The plain scientific approach to me personally is a dead end.