kennett7443 There are a few things going on here. The first is that the op is trying to perform a test - and it is a flawed test in every possible sense. If he wants to do an actual test then he would benefit from the many valid suggestions given by others here. But from his comments, he doesn't actually want to do a test as he's just trying to convince people that they're wrong. His 'test' is in no way rigorous enough to do that either then. So what's the point of it?
As for my personal HD preferences, I have unequivocally detected differences in some recordings, subtle as they may be. Although as I noted elsewhere, many recordings seem indistinguishable to me and some even worse - particularly conversions from old tape.
I don't in any way regard HD as an essential tech for musical enjoyment, but in an age of digital recording, the math that I've looked at suggests that 88k or 96k is the optimum for recording a full range of sound without defects. Regardless of whether the upper octave contains directly perceivable information, it does contain transients that do have some impact and interaction, whether it is positive or perceivable on most systems and after passing through the mix/mastering stages is a separate issue. But I track everything at 96k (as do most of the engineers that I know). And going forward it makes perfect sense in my mind to preserve that rate to the final consumers if they wish it. It's not necessary and I can live without it. But I will always record a master at that level and at lower levels. If consumers want to listen to that, then great. They should have the option.
From a purely archival perspective, I absolutely think that 96k is a good digital standard. It contains more information than the overwhelming majority of current gear and ears can detect, but it doesn't hurt anything and who knows what tech advancements will occur in the future. I'd rather preserve more information than less information and Aretha Franklin's voice in HD excites me to no end.
But to bring it home, the OP test focuses on differences between a couple short clips that don't even faintly resemble the type of source material where I have detected a positive difference and it doesn't address the scientific rational to store music in that format. Nowhere in this thread have I said that all HD is better. But to say that all HD is BS would be equally wrong. It has a place and a purpose and I don't think it's presence in the market harms anyone when they can obtain the same music in a dozen different formats and rates if they choose.