Yes but.. you're missing part of the equation. A higher sampling rate allows a higher frequency range to be reproduced, without aliasing or other anomalies. So by upsampling, you're essentially extending the frequency range. Now, at first you said these higher frequency ranges were inaudible.. so why would I want to extend my frequency range to inaudible levels by upsampling? That's why I said it was contradiction. You keep mentioning these "settings" as justification but as far as I can tell, the settings you're referring to are nothing more then environmental presets in windows like "Concert Hall" or "Underwater". I wouldn't say these are general sound improvements, but rather preference. Here is some information about frequency and bit-depths that might clear things up: Frequency (Sample Rate, or Samples Per Second) Sound is made up from pressure waves. A single constant wave has its frequency measured in Hz (oscillations per second). Humans can hear from a lowest frequency of 10's of Hz, up-to higher frequencies just below 20,000 Hz, or 20 KHz. When talking about digital audio, frequency has a different meaning, it is the rate each sound sample is recorded. Imagine you were told the temperature out side once a day, your friend was told the temperature four times a day, who would have the more accurate picture? your friend. The higher the frequency, the more accurate a representation, up to a point...human hearing can not hear above 20 KHz, so reproducing 50,000 KHz would be a waste of space (each sample takes up space). Nyquist's theorem states: that to reproduce a 22 KHz sound signal, it must sampled (recorded) at more than 2x the required frequency, a sample rate of 44.1 KHz can reproduce a 22 KHz signal. It just so happens that audio CDs have a sample rate of 44.1 KHz, so why is DVD audio 96 KHz, or 192 KHz? is it a marketing ploy? yes and no. Yes it is a ploy in that more appears to be better, it has already been said that an audio CD can reproduce a sound that has a higher frequency than people can hear. No, as it is easier (cheaper) to create a piece of audio equipment that plays back a 18 KHz signal without distortion, when fed a 192 KHz signal rather than a 44.1 KHz signal. High-end gear, would not have much distortion, so there is no point in 96, or 192 KHz audio, just the cheaper consumer gear which improves. Bit Depth (and Amplitude) 8 bit has the worst detail, it looks coarse, for audio it sounds coarse, but there is not too much difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, they are both reaching the limits of perception. Audio CDs are 16 bit, whereas DVDs are 24 bit, again is it a marketing ploy? yes and no, yes most people cannot hear the difference between the two, no as 16 bit audio CDs have been spoilt by the loudness race: that is CDs produced now are volume compressed, that is the quiet parts are pushed up louder, so that when played on the radio or TV the track sounds louder (a 1980's CD would sound quiet in comparison to one from 2000). The downside is that 16 bit CDs are no longer effectively 16 bit, the full audible range is not being used. 24 bit helps, but in the long run, the same fate (loudness war) might happen to 24 bit DVD-audio discs.