You have to separate two things, what bit rate was it originally recorded at and what bit rate are you playing it back at.
In general the higher the sampling rate used to record the music the high the quality of the reproduction. this is not unlike using a higher megapixel camera or a 45 vs 33 rpm LP. but like in both of those cases, while this looks good in theory there are always other details that can derail that. But for the moment let's assume for the sake of the example that this is true. In general, a higher bit rate will give you a smaller interval in time between the sample which will allow you to make a more accurate representation of the original signal when you decode it. The number of bits in each sample will allow you to make a finer spacing between the amplitude levels in each signal and will give you st same type of quality increase with respect top level that high sampling rates do with respect to time. Keep in mind that for any of this to work it must be done at the time of the recording.
So when you see an 88.2 indication of your DAC's display it means that the DAC is reading an 88.2 signal, but this does not tell you if the file was originally recorded at 88.2. It is not uncommon for lower bit rate files to be upsampled to a higher rate. This is done for example by taking a 44.1 CD and making a bitstream where every sample is in there twice. Each one is read twice so even though it is an 88.2 bitstream, there are only 44.1 unique samples to the resolution of this signal is no greater that the original 44.1 signal. However what this does accomplish is since the DAC is operating at 88.2 the noise artifacts generated by the digital process are pushed up higher in frequency and further away from the audio band, making them easier to filter out. Another thing that sounds very logical on paper, but there are widely varying opinions as to whether this actually leads to higher sound quality. As with anything else much of that has to do with the balance of the design other than the upsampling part. And while I just used 88.12 as an example, upsampling can be done to other higher formats as well.
So in general, high sampling rates and longer word lengths can lead to high quality. But keep in mind that they also lead to very large jumps in file size. And like anything else in this hobby you quickly get to the point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. All things being equal, an 88 or 96 file will sound better that a CD. 1 992 file can sound better than a 88, as will every other step up the chain, but by how much, and at what point does the extra size and cost of the file start to exceed the value of the increased SQ? Like in all of our other decisions that is the $64,000 question. There are plenty of people who think we are all crazy and an mp3 file file played through a set of $5 earbuds is all you should ever need . And we all know how nuerotic some of us can get about SQ in all aspects of this hobby. So the choice is really up to you.
Personally I have found to my taste, given the equipment currently in my system, there is not much to be had by going above 192. I do have a lot of DSD files, but that is mostly because I already had a lot of SACD that I was able to rip the high res layer from to play via Roon. So for me that decision was made more based on availability that SQ.
If you are streaming remember that while Qobuz will stream files to you in their native high res formats, up to 192, if Tidal is your service of choice they cannot stream anything higher than 44.1 and anything you see as a higher bitrate on your DAC is the result of some kind of MQA decoding in your system. (The Bluesound Nodes will do the fist layer of MQA software unpacking and then output a digital signal of up to 96/24 to your DAC. If you have hardware MQA in your DAC it will support MQA unpacking up to higher bitrates.)
Blue Coast Records at one point has a free download of a song by Keith Greeninger called Close to the Soul that was given to you in every digital format from CD all the way up to DSD 512 so you could hear the differences with your own ears.