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

@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!

I can’t comment on what you hear and what the difference is on what I can hear. I only know that every person is different and what they can hear is different too. Just because I can very much tell the difference on my system with 192K and 320K MP3’s and then either of those to a CD and then CD to Hi rez (most of the time). BUT not the difference between the 2 high res formats, that doesn’t make me assume that there is no real difference at all or that is the limit on what others can hear either. We are all different hearing just like eye sight. But I can even tell when MP3’s are playing on my little Bose outside portable blue-tooth speaker... :)
I am not talking about "Opening up the transparency and total colorization" when adding little plastic isolators to my speakers interconnects to keep them off the ground. LOL
I am stopping now, I appreciate everyone’s input and I feel kind of stupid not thinking of "listening" to see if I could actually hear the difference. I am glad I could buy just one track of each to see if I could hear a difference or not.
This also made me think of one other thing. I can only unfold MQA to 96/24 and not 192/24 with my current set up. I was starting to obsess about my system not being able to unfold it all the way. looking into hardware upgrades. Now I won’t have to worry about it anymore!! Saved me some $$$ and tap dance explaining to the wife... :)
Thanks again all

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..

Man, I can hear the screamin' difference between MP3 and Red Book quite clearly on my car stereo, let alone my hifi rig!  If you can be happy with 192kbps, I guess that's bliss (as an old adage goes).

I tried the 2 in high res and I could not hear a difference between them. I have before tested between CD and high res and yes I can tell a difference. I am using a PS Audio DAC. 

Yes, I can very much so hear the difference on MP3's.  That wasn't the question I asked though.   Thanks All!

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

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.

Going purely by information density per sample: 

96 x 2^24  is two orders of magnitude more than 192 x 2^16

That is, more than 100x more data. I'd pick the former. 

Best,

E

HAHA, well I never even thought of actually listening. DOH!!  Yes, my system it is capable of playing either one. Thanks!

If it were me downloading I would go for the 24 bit solution as I would rather have 24 than 16 bit. 24gives a better dynamic range (all things being equal )than 16 bit. Also remember if this is a download then there is a good chance the 24 bit signal has not had much active processing done to it and will likely sound better than the 16 bit. Why don’t you download both and see what one sounds the best albeit that your equiptment has the resolution to pick up on the differences.