What hi res file is better 96/24 or 192/16 ?

Surely provenance and mastering matter far more than bitrates once you get past 192kps?

Unless you work in post production, why would you need anything more than 320?

Anyway, it would be nice to hear how your listening went, because for me it’s already difficult enough distinguishing between 192 and 320kps.

Thanks for that Phil, but can you hear any difference between these entirely different solar systems? Can anybody? 

For what it's worth I find it very difficult to hear any improvement at least in the digital landscape over 44.1 kHz (Redbook CD). I did try out Dylan's Love and Theft on SACD but the results were inconclusive. Generally the standard CD was preferred, with the SACD deemed slightly soft. Of course there is always the issue of provenance and different mastering. These tend to have a far greater impact on sound quality at the user end as a simple comparison of the two versions of Street Legal (1986 original CD v 1999 remaster) will readily demonstrate.

With high-res audio you are asked to place your trust in those providing the downloads that the only difference you might hear is down to only the increase in sampling rate, with zero volume and mastering changes. In other words - cheating.

It could well be that modern all digital recordings might benefit from high sampling rates but the evidence is sketchy to say the least. If the differences in listening were night and day like the ones for vision between Video and DVD then hi-res has a great future.

As things stand the existence of some great sounding CDs seems to suggest that there is little wrong with the medium. Perhaps it's the implementation that often leaves a lot to be desired.

And then there's MQA..

@phil9624, Good for you that you can hear a night and day difference between standard and hi-res.

It’s a pity you can no longer enjoy redbook CDs although I agree that many of the MFSL / SHM were no improvement on the original CD transfers (dynamically compressed / poor mastering / dubious tape selections/ etc). It’s particularly galling that the Beatles catalogue is still best represented on vinyl (or even better reel to reel if you ever see one!). It’s still a contentious issue to say what the best digital transfer of the Beatles is. I’d go with the 2O14 US box, but it’s not complete of course.

It’s a pity you find it frustrating that more people don’t follow your lead but I think it’s understandable that people are not so keen to try Hi-Res downloads. Not only because of the high cost but also because many have already made the journey from vinyl to CD (sometimes back again if they too found CD too fatiguing), and now again to downloads may well be a journey too far and too expensive, possibly in the wrong direction.

Perhaps some of us are just being a little bit cynical about how the music business operates but if it works for you, good on you.

As for the cable thread, I'm glad you checked it out. It's a hoot!