[bob]

Here's the first paragraph of their Conclusion section:

"The results of this test indicate that listeners more often than not
identify high-resolution audio as being similar in quality to the
unprocessed analog audio. This conclusion, based on listening to the
audio scene captured and reproduced with microphones and loudspeakers
limited to 20 kHz bandwidth, indicates that high-sampling conversion
system seems to be more transparent and provides a higher degree of
fidelity to the analog reference."

Here's what their data says: Out of 54 trials with that limited
bandwidth, subjects chose the high-sampling-rate system as closer to
the original analog feed 31 times. That's not even statistically
significant at the 90% confidence level. So by their own data, they
can't reject the possibility that their subjects could not tell the
difference between 352.8 kHz sampling and 44.1, even under the best
scenario.

What's odd is that, when they used mikes and speakers with a bandwidth
extended to 100 kHz, the high sampling rate did substantially worse
(23/60). That result is highly counterintuitive, and the authors twist
themselves into pretzels trying to explain it, with no success.

So they're making claims their own data don't fully support and they
can't explain. I think there's no there there.

bob