Headchef
Active Member
- Thread Starter
- #21
So I’m continuing to dig into this rabbit hole….
so, and I might be wrong, but what I think might be happening is that the computer receives the digital file say it’s 16-bit 44-48kHz and if the computer is just set to “pass through / detault” then it will feed it to the dac as is, the dac will then replay it in its native resolution.
but if you enable Audio MIDI Setup it “force feeds” the DAC which then employs its own XMOS clock to upsample, now obviously it’s not possible to create a better sound from the original data but the higher sample rates will enable better application of the DAC’s digital filters adjusting the cut off and phase. It would be interesting to see some actual plotted graphs of this using the review data common to this site to see if my thinking is correct and if it actually improves or lessens the performance of a couple of reviewed DAC’s in “forced feed” compared to “native feed”. Could anyone oblige my curiosity?
so, and I might be wrong, but what I think might be happening is that the computer receives the digital file say it’s 16-bit 44-48kHz and if the computer is just set to “pass through / detault” then it will feed it to the dac as is, the dac will then replay it in its native resolution.
but if you enable Audio MIDI Setup it “force feeds” the DAC which then employs its own XMOS clock to upsample, now obviously it’s not possible to create a better sound from the original data but the higher sample rates will enable better application of the DAC’s digital filters adjusting the cut off and phase. It would be interesting to see some actual plotted graphs of this using the review data common to this site to see if my thinking is correct and if it actually improves or lessens the performance of a couple of reviewed DAC’s in “forced feed” compared to “native feed”. Could anyone oblige my curiosity?