On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:06:06 +0100 Matthijs ten Berge <tenbergemh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Paulo Moura Guedes wrote: > > BTW, Benchmark DAC1 resamples internally to 110kHz: > > > > "On the question of: Why does the DAC1 re-sample to 110 kHz? Here is > > why: it is the highest frequency to maintain the full oversampling of > > the D-A chip. EVERY D-to-A chip on the market cuts the oversampling rate > > in half to accommodate 192 kHz. > > > So these guys are running the DAC at 96 kHz + 14.6%? Sounds to me like > having an 'overclocked' system, very close to (or maybe even past) the > limits of the specs. How much headroom (clock-wise) will there be left > for e.g. temperature fluctuations or component tolerances? > > The argument about 192 kHz is true, but why not run the DAC at the > 'normal' 96 kHz then? I would prefer a 48 -> 96 conversion over a 48 -> > 110 conversion!. > And how about interference: won't a 96 -> 110 conversion give any > interference at 14 kHz? Right in the audible band! > > Matthijs > I think these guys running DAC at 110kHz simply do not understand what they are doing. Upsampling makes sense for better analog reproduction, but when playing at CD sample rate (44.1kHz) they should have upsampled 2x to 88.2kHz - such upsampling does not introduce IMD. Regards, Sergei. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list Alsa-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
