High resolution digital is dead. The best DAC's killed it.

all things being equal, higher rez files can sound a little better overall. but, of course, all things are rarely equal.

i agree with the whole recording quality being more significant than the digital format, but that’s only half the equation. the 800 pound gorilla in the room is native recording source resolution. that’s where you find optimal sound. i always try to listen to the least mucked up source. this goes equally for analog too. give me 1/2" 30ips tape if that is what the recording started life as, or redbook if that’s where it started. direct to disc vinyl is also phenomenal and can compete directly with the best tape.

my MSB Select II has a hybrid dac which optimizes both pcm and dsd whatever resolution. it is astonishingly good on redbook, and does a great job with MQA. but my favorites are consistently the native resolution if i have a way of determining that.

i have dozens of native dxd (352/24) and quad dsd files and those are pretty awesome when the recording quality is also superior. if you think redbook sourced recordings are equal (especially as the music gets more complex) you have work to do.

and not every system will equally reveal media differences. so my experience and realities might not equally apply to all.

YMMV and just my 2 cents.

fleschler
Does anyone know whether the EAR Acute which uses a Wolfson DAC is R2R or sigma-delta?

Stereophile:
" Although predicting the influence on sound quality of the EAR Acute Classic’s poor rejection of jitter is difficult, I do suspect that AD’s reporting of there being "an excess of high-frequency texture," and sound quality that was "slightly grain[y]," is related to this behavior. As much as I admire Tim de Paravicini’s expertise as an analog engineer, the EAR’s digital circuitry is not up to the standard I expect from him".—John Atkinson

If you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears.