Dac not compatable with SBT?

[Pneumonic]

IMHO, 88.2 is a stupid SR to use anyway and it's only because of laziness on the original mix engineer thinking conversion from 88.2 to 44.1 is easier. That may have been the case 6-7 years ago, but not anymore. There is no reason higher SR recordings shouldn't standarize at 96k or 192k.

Hi, Eric. Re: your laziness point ....... when in studio, I had it explained to me, that when prepping for redbook distribution, the engineers used 88.2 over 96 not because they were lazy but because doing so employed 1 less stage of filtering/processing and therefore was deemed sonically superior since less processing meant lower phase and frequency response distortions.

Procedurally, if they had source material recorded at 96kHz they had to, first, upsample it to (IIRC) 14.12MHz and then SRC it down to 44.1kHz. If the source material was recorded at 88.2kHz (or any multiple of 44.1kHz) then they could straight to 44.1kHz in 1 stage. The belief being that the less number of stages of filtering/processing that is being used on the signal, the better the results!

Has the technical process changed to be any different today?

[cfraser]

In the audiophile world (parallel universe...), ASRC is kin to satan. Just kin though. i.e. 88.2kHz->96kHz sample rate

If somebody sold 96/24 downloads that had ASRC previously applied to them, they'd sure hear about it, and so would just about everyone else. It's not easy to hide if you look. What someone does with their music files in the privacy of their own homes...a different matter. If ASRC helps you as a workaround, that's good too, just not preferred. [This is not the same as some other lossless data conversions the Touch/LMS can do, where data is converted 1:1 and nothing is "made up"/interpolated.]

And BTW, this would of course solve the OP's particular problem, though soulkeeper's idea is preferred, if it works.

[adamdea]

In the audiophile world (parallel universe...), ASRC is kin to satan. Just kin though. i.e. 88.2kHz->96kHz sample rate

If somebody sold 96/24 downloads that had ASRC previously applied to them, they'd sure hear about it, and so would just about everyone else. It's not easy to hide if you look. What someone does with their music files in the privacy of their own homes...a different matter. If ASRC helps you as a workaround, that's good too, just not preferred. [This is not the same as some other lossless data conversions the Touch/LMS can do, where data is converted 1:1 and nothing is "made up"/interpolated.]

And BTW, this would of course solve the OP's particular problem, though soulkeeper's idea is preferred, if it works.

I was under the impression that it was tricky to find a file that won't have had its sample rate converted on multiple occasions, and not necessarily by integer multiples, during the recording, mastering , production side. The audiophile world is crazy town; lots of people with delta sigma dacs, digital volume controls digital filters blah blah blah worry about keeping the data pure.