[fado]

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

[Hipper]

It seems to me early days in this high rez market with some problems about quality. The cost also seems high for a small bit of extra quality, if indeed it's there.

I certainly am not buying that music at the moment until I'm convinced it will be consistently better then what I've already got - red book CD.

[Vincent Kars]

I wouldn’t convert.
The better media player can convert on the fly.
My personal favorite, JRiver allows you to set the rate for each individual sample rate.
In my case, as my DAC is limited to 24/96 I play everything at its native sample rate except those above 96. I convert 192 to 96 and 176 to 88.

My personal experience with hires is that they often sound very good. However, modern redbook (16/44.1) does the same. I do think the quality of the recording is far more dominant than the resolution.
This is a nice one: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
Recordings in all kind of formats for free.
Allows you to experiment a little with highres

[Atlplasma]

I agree with Vincent that recording quality is the most important issue. Well-recorded high resolution on a resolving system sounds wonderful.

Economics may play a role in your decision. A nice, used Red Book CD might cost less than $5 delivered. High resolution FLAC albums can easily run $25. And it's not unusual to see DSD albums advertised for $40 to $50.

If money is not a concern, buy your music in high resolution.

[firedog]

If there is something you are interested in in 24/192, try to find out if it actually sounds good (not all of them do). If the answer is yes, I'd buy it. You can listen to a downsampled copy now, and still have the higher res version in the future. By the time you buy another DAC, probably all except the most basic will play 24/192.

[TJHUB]

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

I would assume that since your source is a BDP-1, you are running anything but USB into your EE DAC, right?  As such, your DAC is fully capable of playing 24/192 files.  Only the USB input is limited to 24/96, and you shouldn't be using the USB input on that DAC anyway.  Am I wrong????

[srb]

I would assume that since your source is a BDP-1, you are running anything but USB into your EE DAC, right?  As such, your DAC is fully capable of playing 24/192 files.  Only the USB input is limited to 24/96, and you shouldn't be using the USB input on that DAC anyway.  Am I wrong????

That sounds right to me.  The MiniMax DAC should be capable of 24/192 (at least through the RCA, BNC and AES/EBU inputs; not sure if the optical input can do 24/192 glitch-free), unless I'm missing something also.

The USB input with Burr Brown PCM2707 USB receiver is actually limited to 16/48, which as you point out though, is not an input that would be used with the Bryston BDP-1 anyway.

Steve

[TJHUB]

That sounds right to me.  The MiniMax DAC should be capable of 24/192 (at least through the RCA, BNC and AES/EBU inputs; not sure if the optical input can do 24/192 glitch-free), unless I'm missing something also.

The USB input with Burr Brown PCM2707 USB receiver is actually limited to 16/48, which as you point out though, is not an input that would be used with the Bryston BDP-1 anyway.

Steve

Sorry, you are correct, USB input was only 16 bit.  But the good news is that the OP can listen to 24/192 files. 

[fado]

I use the AES/EBU out from the Bryston BDP-1 to the EE DAC.  I have not been able to play 24/192 files on my EE DAC but I forget now which part is limiting. I do not have the EE Minimax DAC PLUS which I believe will play 192/24 files. Wayne, at Bolder Cable Co, said that the highest resolution he could play on the the original EE DAC was 176/24.

I should probably try a 192 file again.  Thank You for all the suggestions.  In my very limited experience, I do think I can hear clear differences in the quality of the original recordings.

[bplexico]

Personally if I here it is a good recording or if I am going to buy anyway, I pick the 24/192 over the 24/96 though I can only play 24/96 at the moment and have a really low end DAC. Soon I will have one capable of 24/192 play and for me it is worth the extra dollars. A wiser person may indeed conclude that a 24/96 is good enough, but I have never been accused of being so wise...

Barr

[pescholl]

My system can go up to and including 24/192 so I always grab the highest sampling rate I can get.  I also have been purchasing DSD files if the recording is originally in DSD. I can't play DSD directly but I hope to have the hardware in the next couple of years.  Until then I convert the DSD to flac using Audiogate and they become part of my regular hidef library.

[audiogoober]

My system can go up to and including 24/192 so I always grab the highest sampling rate I can get.  I also have been purchasing DSD files if the recording is originally in DSD. I can't play DSD directly but I hope to have the hardware in the next couple of years.  Until then I convert the DSD to flac using Audiogate and they become part of my regular hidef library.

I'm in that same exact situation.

[mnilan]

When I listen to "high-end" equipment at audio shows or in a bricks & mortar store (when I'm traveling - there aren't any where i live), I can hear the difference between mid-fi and the creme de la creme.  However, the cost of the high-end is usually astronomical compared to what I will EVER spend on equipment.  For example, at the Toronto audio show last year my wife and i heard a pair of Focal Stella Utopia speakers.  Within two minutes (no kidding), we were both crying.  The display was playing a classical piece that sounded better than ANY live orchestra either of us had ever heard - by a mile.  The price on the speakers (a "show special") was $39K, driven by another $50K of equipment.  Ain't goint to happen.  My point is that for most of us, our systems are simply not capable of that level of precision.  So, being able to discern any difference between 96 and 192 is dependent upon EVERYTHING in the system, not just the DAC.  It isn't that we can't HEAR the difference, it's that we can't AFFORD it and our current systems (especially the speakers) are not capable of reproducing the difference.  My strategy is to save a few bucks and while I'm fooling around with HI RES, I am investing in some select pieces of 96...
Mike

[Ratman]

Red Book is the way to go, high Res is overrated in my opinion.

[rw@cn]

I started buying SACDs even though I couldn't play them at the time. I knew that I was going to purchase an SACD player. I am happy that I did because many of those early SACDs quickly became unavailable at reasonable prices.

Concerning 192/24 music, I would recommend researching each album first. IMHO almost all music sounds better at HiRes than Redbook. The difference between 96/24 and 192/24 varies. I have purchased a good number of HiRes music using downloads and DVDA/DAD and found that most music sounds better when in 192/24 format. YMMV due to your hearing, the quality of your rig, room acoustics (your room is your most important instrument), etc.

[simon wagstaff]

Red Book is the way to go, high Res is overrated in my opinion.

Threadcrap. That may be your opinion but it is not shared by many others. I have given up on this debate. Either you hear a valuable difference or you do not. I do hear a difference and an improvement and prefer and seek out hi rez music where ever possible. Even field live recordings have a much smoother and 3 dimensional sound at 24/96. Check out Archive.org for a nice selection of free hi rez live recordings, especially by Phil Lesh, Ratdog and Steve Kimock, just to name a few.

With regard to the OP's question I would personally recommend purchasing the 24/192 even if you can't play them now. The difference in cost is not that great and 2 years from now you may regret not getting the 24/192 versions when you could. There is no real downside, except perhaps the extra 5 bucks, to getting the 24/192 files.

Enjoy!

[simon wagstaff]

When I listen to "high-end" equipment at audio shows or in a bricks & mortar store (when I'm traveling - there aren't any where i live), I can hear the difference between mid-fi and the creme de la creme.  However, the cost of the high-end is usually astronomical compared to what I will EVER spend on equipment.  It isn't that we can't HEAR the difference, it's that we can't AFFORD it and our current systems (especially the speakers) are not capable of reproducing the difference.  My strategy is to save a few bucks and while I'm fooling around with HI RES, I am investing in some select pieces of 96...
Mike

I respectfully disagree. I have a friend who only has a DVD player hooked up to a boom box. I sent him my 24/96 copy of Grateful Dead 'One From the Vault" (don't ask where I got it ) He commented on the quality of the sound compared to the commercially available CD. I think the point is, some of the things that make 24/96 sound more pleasing than 16/44.1 or MP3 are still readily apparent, even on lower fidelity equipment. What I can hear is a lower noise floor (which makes things like audience chatter in live recordings more discernable and annoying), dimensionality, space and creaminess of the midrange which can be revealed in even lower fidelity equipment. I've got a pretty decent set up but certainly not anything like you describe hearing at the audio show. It is still quite good.

Clearly, YMMV.

[firedog]

I own lots of hi-res (including 24/192 and DSD), and I too think I hear a difference. I've used the downloads provided by Barry Diament (http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm) so I can accurately compare different resolutions - and I could hear a difference.

That said, in most cases we have no way of knowing if a CD and a hi-res version of an album are from the same master, with downsampling the only difference. In many cases they clearly aren't from the same master, and the hi-res probably sounds better because it is a superior mastering. But hey, all I really care about in the end is if it sounds good, I don't really care how it got there or what the format is.