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

@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

@shadorne I was never a fan of the original Benchmark DA, have not heard yours.  The Avocet DA is very good, yet I don't use it so can't tell you the sound of the latest generation.  All DA are very good these days it's a matter of flavor.  The Solaris is not to my taste, too dry, too cold.

@brianlucey 

Benchmark is as you describe. I use tubes also to warm things up. Thanks for the info on Solaris. I agree that there a lot of great DACs out there nowadays. It often comes down to system synergy or taste.

Brian,

in regards to remastering, can't some remastering The sound of a recording that had been previously mastered in a terrible way? Take, for example, the remastered version of Rush's vapor trails recording.   All of a sudden there were layers of sound uncovered from that recording that were on here a ball in the original muddy release. 

 And what made Bob Ludwig so good at what he did?