I wouldn't down-sample a high rate file. It's not always a good idea, I'd leave it alone.
Under some circumstances, you might up-sample before sending the file to the DAC, but this would only make sense if you knew you could up-sample at higher quality than the DAC's internal up-sampling. -Usually- this isn't the case (not with a DAC using a modern chip set anyway) so again I'd leave it alone. Golden Earring wrote: > So I'd guess that the PCM filtering is applied just below the Nyquist > frequency - isn't the idea of 96kHz sampling frequency recording that > you have your anti-aliasing filtering well up above the audible range so > there is no impact on the audible frequency response at all (given that > real-world filters are not brick-walls)? That is true on the ADC side, or it was, but since ADCs are internally oversampling anyway these days there's no need to record at a higher rate for reasons of the anti-aliasing filter. But you might still record at a higher rate and bit depth in order for more transparent studio processing. On the playback end, modern DACs tend also to over-sample, which creates images, then apply anti-imaging filters. Usually the DAC up-samples in several stages, and often you'll find a combination of digital (the various DAC digital filter options apply here) and analogue filters to remove images. The up-sampling/digital filtering makes the analogue anti-imaging filter much more relaxed. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
