I’d be fascinated to read of any controlled evaluation which conclusively proves that listeners can consistently differentiate hi-res from Red Book, given a common (hi-res) source recording. On the contrary there are tests which demonstrate precisely the opposite.

Higher sampling rates and bit depths obviously have their place in the production chain, to avoid errors and filter effects, but are unnecessary as a final delivery format.

Streaming providers are doing hi-res because that’s what consumers think they want, because marketing has convinced them so and, well, bigger must be better right?

Any “immense difference” can typically be explained by a more careful remastering for the ‘hi-res’ version. 

As for “mastering to mp3”, such a concept is surely oxymoronic? 

Bigger must be better, but ONLY if the Sonos or any other app they use has a visual indication that says that what they are listening to is bigger - there is enough hand wringing seen here on why that indication is often not there to be seen. It is like they need their eyes to tell their ears of what is the bit count in the stream they are listening to, to be sure it sounds better. Quite silly.

Compare that to HD video where any indicator on the screen that says 1080P/HD is completely redundant. 

It gets even sillier when MQA fans crave the little blue light on their decoder.

Ah yes, but sit far enough back from the set and they all look the same: SD, HD or 4K.

Bigger must be better,

Of course it is, how else could they charge more for the service. 

Except many of them no longer charge extra for lossless, never mind ‘hi res’. 

PS: This did not go through at first writing - I find that on a large screen at recommended viewing distance, SD is not a pleasure anymore if the HD version is available. HD to 4K is not anywhere near that kind of a difference and not something I will change TVs for, and 8K will be pointless, I believe.

Appreciate your kind attitude Kumar, we all have our opinions, and that’s not a bad thing.  Take care.