[fado]

RE-POSTED TO HI-RES CIRCLE:

I have the earlier Eastern Electric DAC with Boulder Cable Co Level One plus modifications. It will not play 192/24 files. I do not intend to replace this anytime soon but I would like to know if I should start purchasing 192/24 files and just convert them to 96/24 using DBPoweramp for now with the expectation of a future 192/24 capable DAC?

Or, should I just be satisfied with the lower resolution files now until I actually change DAC's? I rarely find 88.2/24 files but the one or two I have sound as good or better than 96/24 on my system - this could just be the quality of the specific recordings however.

(My system: Bryston BDP-1, Eastern Electric DAC, Modwright LS100, Modwright KWA 150SE, Daedalus Audio DA-RMa speakers.)

Thank You

[ted_b]

That is a very good question, and a very tough answer.  Some downloads make a huge difference, and it ends up they were mastered and/or recorded at 24/192 in the first place (lots of Chesky stuff like Jimmy Cobb Jazz In The Key Of Blue....Soundkeeper recordings from Barry Diament, etc).  But I wouldn't spend the extra on classic rock releases, for example.  Getting to 24 bit is usually the biggest jump.   There is no right answer, but I'd like to ehar from others.  I can tell you that I love many of my 24/192 albums, but I'd guess that 50%+ of them I'd not be able to a/b blindly with their 24/96 download counterpart.  The differences just aren't there on many of them.

[golfugh]

I have to agree with Ted!  I have quite a few 192k recordings that were recorded as such, BUT in some instances I can't tell the difference between the same album in 96k.  There are exceptions as Ted mentioned, one I'll add is Muddy Waters Folk Singer, incredible recording at 24/192k.

It would be nice to know the provenance of all of the Hi-res recordings!  Ted is a great source of information on that issue.

So, I guess I'll say if you know the original recording provenance, buy that...if not buy the cheaper of the two.