Pre amps cost vs. value ... what I discovered last month.

@brianlucey Specifically, I agree that SR appears to be a manufactured market manipulation designed to convince the consumer that there is "more and better" to be heard at higher SRs whether it be via HD Tracks or MQA. While it seems there is something different to possibly be heard, different is not necessarily "better" or worth more. It would be helpful if the consumer could know, before purchase, the SR used during recording/mastering of the original recording. I want to know what the musicians and recording/mastering engineers wanted the audience to hear when they listened to the recording. I'm not interested, at all, in what a record company wants to convince me of so they can sell me multiple versions of the same "recording." I always assumed, prior to being able to purchase HiRez formats, that the music was mastered to sound best via a particular medium.  The mastering of an LP was done with the intention that it would sound its best in analog on a turntable. The mastering of a CD was done with the intention that it would sound its best at 44/16 through a CD transport. I find that, for the most part, well recorded/engineered RBCD sounds very good with a high quality DAC and the recording's overall SQ does not routinely improve in HiRez formats. In essence, HiRez becomes a crap shoot where the customer often is left paying more for something that sounds no better or sometimes worse than the RBCD the customer already owns or could easily obtain much cheaper in the used CD marketplace. 
Regards
Al        

@rsf507 yes 2 inputs and 1 output all balanced

Bob Katz compares the Cranesong Avocet to Benchmark DACs in his review!

So, what does the Avocet sound like? For digital (PCM) sources, its DAC sounds indistinguishable from the Benchmark, one of the best DACs I’ve heard regardless of price....

I use a Benchmark DAC 3 but I hear the new Cranesong Solaris is something very special. Have you heard the Solaris and compared it to Bricasti? I would love to hear your thoughts. I totally respect Audio Professionals - they have more experience then I can ever hope to get in a lifetime. Primarily I use pro equipment because of the proven track record with you golden-eared pros!

@charles1dad my only thought is that DR is only a number not an actual quality rating of the mastering.  Listen to the music, and if it moves you, it moves you.   Modern music is more compressed and limited in mixing.  Mastering is then asked to go further in many cases.   It can still be good music and great mastering ... or not.   And it IS ALWAYS AS THE ARTIST INTENDED.  Don't blame the ME, we are service providers.  Those who sign off and drive the train are the artists and sometimes labels, but usually artists and producers.

@astewart8944 you have hit the nails on the head in each aspect. FYI, I print with the Pacific Microsonics AD at 44.1.  That converter in the modern market would take a retail of $70k to create, and it's my fave AD by far.  Sounds great at 44.1.  I like the low end density and there is plenty of air in the sound of the box.  Actually I have 5 of them (model one and two), just in case, as there is only one man in the world who can do repairs.  Thank God for him, the sweetest and most honorable tech you could hope to find.  Mohammed Kahn.

We agree that a database of sample rate and bit depth (mostly 24 but not always back in the day) is what is needed to be hearing the mastering session as intended.  If only that were the case.  Instead there is fear based greed in the midst of our quest to hear the masters.  My work, again, always 24/44.1.  MQA screws it up.  MFiT, screws it up.  Universal was for years putting an audible watermark (yes, audible) on all their digital releases.  I'm told that has stopped.  CDs are the safe way to go for my work.  Others print at 96k, etc.  To each his/her own.

@astewart8944

+1 on sample rate or high resolution.

With the right DAC there is no audible benefit to higher sample rates.

Unfortunately, most DACs are rather non-linear and a higher sample rate actually helps “randomize” noise from these poorly constructed non-linear DACs. The result is a whole industry around software (like Roon) to upsample when the problem is with inadequate hardware. Nearly everyone reports an improvement from upsampling a low resolution file - nearly everyone has a DAC with limited performance.

http://www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf