I'm old enough to have been through a fair few audio changes, from AM radio to FM to FM stereo. From mono LP to stereo LP to CD via cassette (with a side road of Quadraphonics) In each case, there was a clear quality difference, and (Quadraphonics aside) improvement, obvious even to the Great Unwashed. It didn't need blind listening tests and statistical analysis to detect whether there was an improvement. With Hires, we're still arguing whether there actually is an improvement or not, and if there is one, then it's pretty subtle, and what is it? That to me goes firmly into the 'Who Cares' category, the audio equivalent of Angels dancing on pinheads.
If HiRes wants to capture the mass-market, which is the only thing major record companies care about, it's going to have to find something rather more obvious than subtle discussions about phase linearity or pre-ringing which means absolutely nothing to the music-buying general public. That's why I think the whole HiRes business is a nonsense, of interest only to a few geeks.
S.
I completely agree that there have been major advances in audio over the decades. But, as I have said often, audio is mature and further advances are likely to grow ever smaller, with occasional past exceptions, like digital vs. analog, Mch vs. stereo or DSP EQ. Most all of the biggest problems have been vanquished, so only smaller and subtler problems or refinements remain. I conceded long ago that hirez audio is like that and follows the diminishing returns rule as an evolutionary refinement, not a breakthrough.
I didn't need statistical analysis to tell me so, either. I heard the advantage of hirez for myself, and the science, as I have read it subsequently, supports that there is something there. It is not, as I read the science, just another phony snake oil game. I am not trying to convince you there is a difference, and there is no way I can prove it beyond all possible doubt. If you don't hear it, I respect your right to hold that "who cares" opinion and go in a different direction. But, I do hear it, myself, and I value it, subtle though it may be. Others hear it, too, like me with repeatability.
Counter arguments have as much difficulty totally refuting or negating any claims to improvement as do arguments in favor. And, many counter arguments have been bogus and inept, even supposedly "scientific" ones like the now discredited Meyer-Moran study. But, that is where we are in most things in mature audio today - small, subtle, debatable evolutionary improvements at the fringes of audibility as we understand it. Yes, I know, this also opens the door potentially to the snake oil guys. But, they are fairly easy to spot because they have zero testing or honest science to back up their claims. Meanwhile, if the the prospect of an an improvement from hirez is too small for you or others, I cannot argue. Enjoy your sound as you wish!
No, I don't think hirez "wants to" or will capture the mass market, certainly not in my lifetime. The status quo is often instinctively desireable as part of human nature, even if it is contrary to scientific or other objective evidence. Been there, done that in many fields, not just audio. We hold onto older or more established popular ways, just because fear, uncertainty and doubt about newer ways makes the old more comfortable than evaluating evidence about newer ways, even possible direct evidence to our ears. But, then, I am not a mass market guy and never was. No audiophile and nutty music collector like me is. Until I get audio reproduction indistinguishable from my recollection of live music, imperfect though that may be, I will continue to seek improvement. Big, breakthrough improvement would be good, but I often have to settle for the small improvements technologically possible. Hirez itself is merely for me a small stepping stone in that direction.
Ok, I just saw that some of my points independently echoed those of
@Blumlein 88, above. Nice to know some of us are on the same wavelength.