We're OT since a long time already and the OP is long gone.
You mean the website where they discuss the merits of respective usb cables ?
It was a jest, because 16 to 24bits saves the day as far as high-resolution formats and THD+N are concerned. However, it is also quite serious. Many professionals, including Dan Lawry (in here: http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf ), have pointed out that 192khz is completly useless. 24bits/96khz is already overkill. The DAC IC don't care if they receive a file sampled "natively" at 192khz or upsampled. In both cases, they will add more distortion of their own than if they had received files sampled at 96 or 44.1 khz, just have a look at the datasheets.
Bogus data is perfectly fine, when the differences in the analog waveform end up under -140db (Benchmark measured distortion due to their use of an ASRC at -135db, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t75505.html ).
I have some 24bit 192kHz music I downloaded from HD Tracks. I also have music server software on my laptop that has drivers for 24/192 along with a digital output. The music played 24/192 is much better sounding by many orders of magnitude with more detail than anything else I have in my library. The music recording business is not my business or area of expertise, however I do have an experience of its results. And I am shifting my entire music playback system architecture to feed my DAC from a music server which I intend to load with 24/192 music because of superior results. I don't understand the metrics you are using, but (not to be sniping at you, please don't take it that way) I don't listen to metrics, I listen to music and I will move toward what sounds best and give me the most enjoyment.
What is your experience with higher resolution music? Have you experienced it to be just about the same as "regular" music?