Choosing sampling rate with Blu Ray Audio discs

[BruceB]

Not sure why, have you asked Sony?

Audibly you're getting everything....as far as 2ch goes.

To flip the question around the other way, if I already have 24-bit 192kHz in hand, is there a disadvantage in playing it back at that resolution and rate? Is it desirable for the player to downsample what's on the disc before handing it off to the DAC?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

To flip the question around the other way, if I already have 24-bit 192kHz in hand, is there a disadvantage in playing it back at that resolution and rate? Is it desirable for the player to downsample what's on the disc before handing it off to the DAC?

No disadvantage, downsampling has been transparent for decades. I have an ancient Sony BDP, but unfortunately no BR-A discs (like yours) to test it with, other than my own creations. I would just enjoy the music

 

[ddude003]

No, some go to 40k because there's no point to low passing at 14k. Plenty younger folks can hear above that.

Only one worse that BStuart is Ohashi. His paper is complete nonsense. The NHK replica that showed his experiment used flawed speakers and missed confounders:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120626185652/http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/labnote/lab486.html
The "Hi rez" (and thank goodness MQA) fad was a complete market failure because there's no there there. The only reason for SACD, DVDA, Bluray audio is...the extra channels. Not the completely inaudible sampling and bit depth. The limitations of stereo is 2ch's, not rates.

Lol... Everything is BobS with you... And there is no such thing as ultrasonic harmonics...

 

[AJ Soundfield]

And there is no such thing as ultrasonic harmonics...

Actually there is...if you understand the Ohashi paper you cited