@chcook:
Thanks, interesting and thorough test!
While I'm not disputing what you heard (I myself have had similar experiences: try Pink Floyd Pulse, for example), OTOH, I have found that apples to apples, higher rez is better, BUT conditions apply:
* Good Mastering: a well-mastererd CD beats a mediocre 96/24 transfer any time of the day. Try a Japanese CD remaster and the sound is phenomenal!
* enhance USB file transfer: SQ improves dramatically using a reclocker between the USB out and the DAC input.
I experimented with a friend, digitalising Floyd's DSOTM into 16/44.1, & 24/96 & 192, using a S Yorke TT. 24/192 was noticeably better than the redbook version and empirically better than the 24/96, the differences easily evident in the hi frequencies (more detail & less harsh, tizzy sound). The FR was also measurably better in the HF in 24/192.
Thanks, interesting and thorough test!
While I'm not disputing what you heard (I myself have had similar experiences: try Pink Floyd Pulse, for example), OTOH, I have found that apples to apples, higher rez is better, BUT conditions apply:
* Good Mastering: a well-mastererd CD beats a mediocre 96/24 transfer any time of the day. Try a Japanese CD remaster and the sound is phenomenal!
* enhance USB file transfer: SQ improves dramatically using a reclocker between the USB out and the DAC input.
I experimented with a friend, digitalising Floyd's DSOTM into 16/44.1, & 24/96 & 192, using a S Yorke TT. 24/192 was noticeably better than the redbook version and empirically better than the 24/96, the differences easily evident in the hi frequencies (more detail & less harsh, tizzy sound). The FR was also measurably better in the HF in 24/192.