I hate when people argue with scientific research articles without understanding the article, science, or use arguments based on faulty logic. Nothing wrong with debate, but don't try to debate something you don't understand. Ask questions at least first!
https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/13493/Reiss A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution 2016 Published.pdf?sequence=1
This article caused a lot of stir in the audio community because it suggested that the preponderance of evidence in all studies on high sample rate music suggested it was audible over standard sampling rate. Yet most of the disagreement with this was not based on science or an understanding of what a meta-analysis is. I tried to explain only to end up being, essentially, screamed at via angry anti-high resolution audio folks. With NO regard to the underlying science. We can argue about the findings for sure, but they are what they are.
A legitimate argument for this would be, all they found was that it is audibly distinguishable, not that it sounded better. That is fair, most of the research lacked the methods needed to understand the audible benefit. It is possible that the high sampling rate created a detrimental artifact.
Some tried to discredit the author, but we need to understand how well respect and high impact Dr. Reiss is. He has been cited in professional audio related journals 3 times more than Dr. Floyd Toole!
