Can digital audio playback be improved by resolutions greater than 16/44.1?

In that case, everything about hi res is all noise and no signal. As Sonos has clearly understood.

An attempt to link today's What HiFi article -- Sonos says high-res audio support "not on the roadmap" -- has been swallowed by the automoderator. Maybe it will emerge eventually.

An attempt to link today's What HiFi article -- Sonos says high-res audio support "not on the roadmap" -- has been swallowed by the automoderator. Maybe it will emerge eventually.

I posted it earlier but was also swallowed by the moderator but now its showing up (3 posts back)

An attempt to link today's What HiFi article -- Sonos says high-res audio support "not on the roadmap" -- has been swallowed by the automoderator. Maybe it will emerge eventually.

I posted it earlier but was also swallowed by the moderator but now its showing up (3 posts back)
Thanks Nick. Should have spotted that one.

The 'learning filter' clearly isn't.

EDIT: My post was just rescued.

From the interview:
"I think the future is going to be a variable bitrate."
What does he mean by that?

The study you cite, by its very conclusions, has found no improvements, only "differences". It has no bearing on this thread.
You are right to point out that the study finds differences, not improvements. That is the first step. Presumably the next step is to establish why these differences are perceived, and then whether there is a preference for hi-res. It has every bearing on this thread without providing a definitive answer yet.

Mr. Reiss is lying in his PR statement.
I think it is unwise to level an accusation of lying based on a PR statement. Journalists and/or University PR Departments routinely misunderstand or misquote scientists. Dr Reiss makes no such statement in his published paper.

From the interview:
"I think the future is going to be a variable bitrate."
What does he mean by that?
I don't really know. It was appended to a remark (dismissal?) about MQA, and I can't quite see the relevance.

He's talking about getting everyone onto 16/44 (and away from MP3) as an initial aspiration. Compressed lossless is inherently variable rate -- depending on musical complexity -- so maybe that's what he's referring to.

BTW, it's interesting to see the first few comments on that WHF piece are supportive of Sonos' common sense approach. My impression is that WHF rather bangs the HiRes drum, along with whole swathes of the industry desperate to get us to replace everything (kit, media) all over again.

WHF bangs whatever drum is at hand. I don't blame them; if they did not do that they would have little to publish except official specs and photos of kit. Saying what is under review is the next great thing is what they do every month, which is what every other magazine does, to have something to exclaim about. Advertising keeps them in that mode, but even if there were no ads, how else to sell the latest issue?

Given the sound quality obtainable from Apple Music via 256 kbps AAC, I doubt there will ever be a stampede in the direction of 16/44 now.

We'll see. With Spotify rumoured to be launching a lossless service I'd be surprised if Apple didn't follow suit. And Apple has the financial muscle to price it aggressively -- at say a premium of just 50%.