Jeg læste på et tidspunkt en lettere omskrivning af et berømt Kennedy-citat:

Spørg ikke, hvad musikken kan gøre for dit hifi, men hvad dit hifi kan gøre for musikken.

Og diskussionen om SACD, high-rez, BD-Audio og hvad diverse højopløselige superformater nu hedder er for mig at se en tur slugt ned i hifi-fælden, hvor man udelukkende benytter sit anlæg på at spille supeoptagelser, og vægrer sig ved at spille sin gamle yndlingsmusik, fordi den er for dårligt optaget/komprimeret/ikke tilgængelig i high-rez (fortsæt selv remsen).

Sagen er, at de plader, jeg sætter allermest pris på, sjældent er specielt godt optaget – og det ændrer et superformat sjældent på – snarere tværtimod.

Selvfølgelig er der plader, hvor såvel produktion som musik er i top; og de (få) albums køber jeg gerne i en eller anden form for høj opløst format, men jeg gider ikke at sidde og lytte på Diana Krall eller Cheskys endeløst kedsommelige indspilninger blot fordi de er godt optaget – eller kan anskaffes i et høj opløst format.

In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and CD audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8 % success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50 % that would have been expected by chance guessing alone. The authors commented:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests.