no problem phil9624. :-)
Dan Lavry (manuf of Lavry DACs. Lavry DACs are well regarded in the audiophile world) wrote a pretty nice white paper on this:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
and here is another white paper on Sampling Theory (which i think you know well w/ your Physics degree) which touches upon the pros & cons of 192KHz upsampling:
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
but actually downsampled some 192/24 FLAC Neil Young albums from PONO to 96/24 WAV and think it sounds better, also smaller file. Go figure! Best, Philit's not entirely surprising. As you know, the fold-over frequency for 192K is 96K & your digital stream is incoming at 192K. The circuits involved in handling this digital stream & the corresponding analog circuits need to have 2X the bandwidth (compared to a 24/96 data stream). So, the real question is: in your electronics, were the circuits designed for higher bandwidth? If not, it is quite possible that the circuits are distorting & even tho' the 24/192 might be cleaner/better sonically, the circuits are unable to render this correctly.
Dan Lavry (manuf of Lavry DACs. Lavry DACs are well regarded in the audiophile world) wrote a pretty nice white paper on this:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
and here is another white paper on Sampling Theory (which i think you know well w/ your Physics degree) which touches upon the pros & cons of 192KHz upsampling:
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf