FlacTheRipper

Yes. I used format factory to convert, for example, a 24bit/192khz file to 16bit/44.1khz. I did not dither or do anything fancy like that so it's certainly possible improper conversion on my part may have contributed to a percieved difference in quality. What do you think?

I forgot to mention. I always take different mastering into account. When I compared hi-res to redbook, the redbook file was converted straight from the hi-res file.

Sorry if this is a silly question. I have many hi-res files (96khz and above) that I listen to frequently and I find that they sound better to me than standard redbook. My personal subjective impression of the sound difference is that hi-res sounds 'softer' and 'fuller' whereas redbook sounds 'harsher' and 'thinner'. I have heard many arguments that hi-res doesn't make any difference though. Obviously there's that fact that my ears simply aren't picking up anything above 22khz. On top of that, I listen to music on cheap $80 speakers on a computer that lacks any kind of high end hardware for sound reproduction. So what am I hearing exactly? Some kind of distortion or noise that I am mistakenly perceiving as better quality?