Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?

mzkmxcv353 postsSince no one >10 can hear over 20kHz, there is no point to listening to something like 192kHz in the first place, if your amp can even properly playback such high frequencies, all you are doing is increasing the chances of driving your tweeter into distortion.

That is, I am afraid, nonsense. My long term dealer and I sat in DCS demonstration room and agreed that upsampling to 192, generally but not always, resulted in a better listening experience, and indeed preferable to upsampling to dsd. I have then at home set my DCS  upsampler to 192 after I confirmed the findings in my home environment. Your upsampler may be inferior of course .... And my speakers are B&W800d3s and are not adversely affected by 192 as you falsely claim again, so again you are possibly listening to inferior speakers and making generalisations on a totally a false premis. I can ask B&W if they agree with you, but I won't bother.
And by the way I find digital copies of vinyl records totally lifeless and pointless.  I prefer listening to the actual vinyl or a properly recorded digital version, upsampled if appropriate. Naysay if you wish, but that is pointless as all that does is to falsely tell me my listening is inferior, which it isn't.

tatyana, my reference to a vinyl to digital transfer wasn't to imply that this recording was good, bad or indifferent. It's just something that is different from my experiences with other digital files and I am curious as to why. Like I said, various components have there own characteristics due to filters, power outputs, etc...
Some DAC's are built for non up sampling. My DAC does up sample and so I up sample to 96 kHz in most cases.
I don't mean to imply that my equipment or opinion is superior to any one else's, just that oversampling in most situations, for me, has proven to be problematic when it comes to sound quality.
I happen to prefer DSD to PCM but I don't up sample DSD.

“Since no one >10 can hear over 20kHz, there is no point to listening to something like 192kHz in the first place, if your amp can even properly playback such high frequencies, all you are doing is increasing the chances of driving your tweeter into distortion“

Total BS......

Basically speaking, the higher your bit-depth/sampling rate, the "better" quality recording you’ll get. You just to need make sure your equipment is up to the task.

The 24bit/196khz files on Qobuz sounds much more dynamic over 16bit/44.1kHz files on Tidal.

My long term dealer and I sat in DCS demonstration room and agreed that upsampling to 192, generally but not always, resulted in a better listening experience, and indeed preferable to upsampling to dsd. I have then at home set my DCS upsampler to 192 after I confirmed the findings in my home environment.

I don’t doubt your experience at all. But, the quality and implementation of the DAC analogue stage must be taken into consideration. The article mentions that the rest of the system must be up to the task of clean reproduction. But after upsampling the data, the analogue output stage must be up to the task.
So this exercise should be measured in a case by case basis.YMMV.

You are invited to look up about the Nyquist Theorem which is the basis of all analog to digital encoding. But to cut to the chase regarding sampling rates more is better. To wit the last and some would argue ultimate method of audio digitization is Direct Stream Digital DSD format which samples at 64X CD or 2.8 megahertz and uses one bit quantization.  The huge dump of data bits on optical disc is called SACD.