"One thing for sure, sampling rate does matter. 192kHz sounds better and more natural than 96kHz."
agree, but only if raw files were mastered at higher bit & sampling rates (many hi-rez recordings are mastered at 16/44kHz & simply "upsampled" to higher rates, then marketed/sold to audiophiles. such tracks are often only marginally better than redbook versions. this is mostly "smoke & mirrors" since most DACs upsample anyway).
Reference Recordings are great for showing off the technical capabilities of digital technology (as well as ones music system), but they're not a mainstream record co., & i get bored listening to their somewhat eclectic "showcase recordings" over & over).
anyway, i think we are digressing fm Rademaker's orig. topic.
p.s. Lavry Gold does handle 24/96kHz.
agree, but only if raw files were mastered at higher bit & sampling rates (many hi-rez recordings are mastered at 16/44kHz & simply "upsampled" to higher rates, then marketed/sold to audiophiles. such tracks are often only marginally better than redbook versions. this is mostly "smoke & mirrors" since most DACs upsample anyway).
Reference Recordings are great for showing off the technical capabilities of digital technology (as well as ones music system), but they're not a mainstream record co., & i get bored listening to their somewhat eclectic "showcase recordings" over & over).
anyway, i think we are digressing fm Rademaker's orig. topic.
p.s. Lavry Gold does handle 24/96kHz.