Videodrome;216862 Wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the attraction to 96K > upsampling to reduce the brick wall effect of filtering at or near 44.1 > kHz?
The attraction of 96K Sampling (not up sampling) over 44.1K sampling, is that it moves the brick wall filter from 22.05 kHz to 48 kHz. This can have audible benefits, because the 22kHz filter usually has measurable affects in the audible pass band. Move the filter to 48k and the effects are outside of the audible portion of the pass band. Oversampling on playback allows similar movement of the re-construction filter, and has been used by all playback systems for 20 years now (recall 4x or 8x oversampling, or 176K or 352K to keep the same scale). Usually, its used to allow a low order re-construction filter (ie, the reconstruction filter does NOT have to be a brick wall design, 3-4th order is usually enough). Upsampling is a term used by some to describe what they feel is a better oversampling algorithm, but the cold fact of the matter is that there's really no difference to the two. They are both changing the data rate, but neither is really capable of recreating what has been lost by the original anti-aliasing filter. Even if you knew exactly how to compensate for the audible affects of the anti-aliasing filter in one studio's A/D, it wouldn't necessarily work for another. Hope this doesn't just confuse things more! Cheers, Dave -- DCtoDaylight ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
