If you mean the extended frequency range you get in HD sample rates (88.2k and above), any data there is an artifact. The entire point is to give the actual audio band (20-20k) a VERY wide margin.
If the sampling frequency is right at the edge of the data band you need to put a steep filter there. This is a difficult analog circuit that's part of a converter circuit. THAT is actually the part you're critiquing between different converter units. How well the analog stages of the converter circuits are dialed in and how good those low pass filters are in SD mode. HD avoids that with wide margins. They all use mostly the same digitizer chips. Sometimes the simple solution is the way to go!
And you really can upsample SD program if your DAC unit sounds better at HD.
The more boutique DAC units pretty much sound just as good at SD as HD. That's part of what you paid for.
Related:
I believe 96k/24 bit to be a complete container for audio no matter what's happened to that audio previously.
I wanted to see if 192k held on to something extra.
You know how people have uploaded a video to Youtube 100 times to exaggerate the compression artifacts? The point of that is to show they are there even though you might not notice them with one pass.
So I did that with 192k vs 96k
Source: A side of Dave Crosby - Remember My Name 45 rpm Classic Records vinyl
Apogee Rosetta 800 192k
A high fidelity source.
192k original -> 96k -> 192k
This iteration #3 here is the first return to 192k.
Obviously there's a difference with whatever ultrasonic artifacts truncated. Sounds identical to me and nulls down to 90db or so on the meter. The difference signal is not audible in any way even with dangerous monitor levels.
On we go until iteration #100 back to 192k.
#3 and #100 null perfectly to digital zero. The audio band has not been touched. Not even 1 bit changed over all those conversions.
So I like 96k 24 bit digital. It just works no matter what. And works the best in all AD and DA converters no matter what.