The KI’s answer is unprecise:

Sample rate vs. Sharp Filter cutoff start:
SR 44.1 kHz - 20 kHz
SR 48 kHz - 22 kHz
SR 96 kHz - 44 kHz

So the filter kicks in at ca. 1/2 sample rate -10%, the margin it needs for the transition from pass- to stop-band.

ADI-2 Pro‘s manual page 86, 34.14 DA Filter Curves 44.1 kHz shows the frequency responses of the various DA-filters.

I can‘t hear any sound difference between the filters at SR‘s above 48 kHz.
So the selection of filters is irrelevant from 88.2 kHz and above.

KaîS, thank you for your response. That's what I was looking for.

Again, ChatGPT gave me the answer, I was looking for.

This was my prompt:
MY RME DAC has an DA Filter SD Sharp, which filters from about 20 kHz upwards with sample ratels of 44.1 Khz and 48 kHz. However, when the sample rate is for instance 92 kHZ, does the SD Sharp Filter filter from 48 kHz upwards?

...........
Explanation deleted
..........

So, to answer your question: Yes, when the sample rate is 96 kHz, the SD Sharp filter will start filtering from around 48 kHz upwards. This scaling ensures that the filter continues to remove unwanted frequencies and noise that are above the audible range and could cause issues with digital audio processing.

False, as it is around 44 kHz, not 48 kHz. ;-) ChatGPT did not know, just guessed that it is about half of 96 kHz....

Sample rate vs. Sharp Filter cutoff start:
SR 44.1 kHz - 20 kHz
SR 48 kHz - 22 kHz
SR 96 kHz - 44 kHz

So the filter kicks in at ca. 1/2 sample rate -10%, the margin it needs for the transition from pass- to stop-band.

ADI-2 Pro‘s manual page 86, 34.14 DA Filter Curves 44.1 kHz shows the frequency responses of the various DA-filters.

I can‘t hear any sound difference between the filters at SR‘s above 48 kHz.
So the selection of filters is irrelevant from 88.2 kHz and above.

It is just great Baron Munchausen....

switch6343 wrote:

Again, ChatGPT gave me the answer, I was looking for.

I hope you don't refer to ChatGPT for medical advices

I guess you are a self proclaimed, would-be, expert who fell and falls victim of your hubris and vanity. You're ignorant and your response proves you're uneducated and badly mannered. You behave like a parrot. The substance of your responses is zero. In fact, you have no clue whatsoever.

That ChatGPT answer may be right, or not. IMHO it is just guessing.... One would have to look at specsheet.

The fact is that when DA is performed the filter should remove frequencies above the half sampling frequency. But designer may decide to place filter at lower frequency...

ramses wrote:

It makes no sense to bring the answers from KI tools into discussions. Trust the real experts instead. I have asked the AI in areas I know a lot about on a trial basis and the quality of the answers is just scary.

Think about it, the AI is fed with so much data, who knows where it all comes from and no one can tell me that something like quality could be ensured with so much different data and data sources. You can also see it in the quality of the answers. Some things may be true, others not. As in many areas, “shit in, shit out”.

I didn't receive any answer from an "expert" to my question.

I expected from so called "experts" on this forum to respond rationally and without prejudice. Why not respond objectively and constructively? Why responding non-factually and emotionally, why exposing personal prejudice to the audience at large?

I did not ask for an opinion on ChatGPTs answers to prompts. 

It seems some respondents are bathing themselves in self-indulgence.

Sorry, but I don't reply to such unobjective and emotional comments.

It makes no sense to bring the answers from KI tools into discussions. Trust the real experts instead. I have asked the AI in areas I know a lot about on a trial basis and the quality of the answers is just scary.

Think about it, the AI is fed with so much data, who knows where it all comes from and no one can tell me that something like quality could be ensured with so much different data and data sources. You can also see it in the quality of the answers. Some things may be true, others not. As in many areas, “shit in, shit out”.

I didn't receive any answer from an "expert" to my question.

I expected from so called "experts" on this forum to respond rationally and without prejudice. Why not respond objectively and constructively? Why responding non-factually and emotionally, why exposing personal prejudice to the audience at large?

I did not ask for an opinion on ChatGPTs answers to prompts. 

It seems some respondents are bathing themselves in self-indulgence.

Frankly, I would rather not read increasingly in forums what an AI is rambling on about, knowing that you can't rely on the statements.

Coupled with a certain belief in technology/AI, this will simply lead to “exciting” or should I better say "unnecessary" discussions and irritations in the sense of “the AI said it”.

It will also make working in the forum more difficult. Instead of simply being able to answer a question, you have to deal with all the AI's "verbiage", which is peppered with wrong, partly right and right answers. But it's far too much work having to review this information.

Above all, you may have to argue why you and not the AI are right. Let's be honest, nobody needs that.

AI is helpful in areas with more control over the quality of training data, e.g. medical area where you also have to meet certain quality standards.

Again, ChatGPT gave me the answer, I was looking for.

I hope you don't refer to ChatGPT for medical advices

Does your answer contradict the ChatGPT's response? If your advise is to listen to the real experts, why don't your respond to my one and only simple question? I am very much open to accept responses from experts, to which you are considered one of them by me.

I just asked that one question, to which only ChatGPT gave me a plausible answer. Just, tell me that the response of ChatGPT is non-sense and please inform me what the correct answer is from an expert.

Think about it, the AI is fed with so much data, who knows where it all comes from and no one can tell me that something like quality could be ensured with so much different data and data sources. You can also see it in the quality of the answers. Some things may be true, others not. As in many areas, “shit in, shit out”.

This was my prompt:
MY RME DAC has an DA Filter SD Sharp, which filters from about 20 kHz upwards with sample ratels of 44.1 Khz and 48 kHz. However, when the sample rate is for instance 92 kHZ, does the SD Sharp Filter filter from 48 kHz upwards?

ChatGPT
The behavior of the SD Sharp filter in your RME DAC changes with different sample rates. Here's a more detailed explanation:

At 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz sample rates: The SD Sharp filter begins to filter from around 20 kHz upwards. This is because these sample rates are typically used for standard audio playback, where the audio content is within the human hearing range (up to 20 kHz), and the filter helps to remove frequencies beyond this range to avoid aliasing and other artifacts.

At higher sample rates (e.g., 96 kHz): The filtering behavior of the SD Sharp filter will scale with the sample rate. For a sample rate of 96 kHz, the filter cutoff point will move up proportionally. Specifically, the filter will start attenuating frequencies above approximately half the sample rate. In the case of 96 kHz, this would be around 48 kHz.

So, to answer your question: Yes, when the sample rate is 96 kHz, the SD Sharp filter will start filtering from around 48 kHz upwards. This scaling ensures that the filter continues to remove unwanted frequencies and noise that are above the audible range and could cause issues with digital audio processing.

Graph 34.13 applies to AD filters, not DA Filters

I wasn't saying they were. I was implying that looking at these graphs could help you understand how different reconstruction filters affect the frequency response of a converter and why it's better to shift their effect on the FR outside of the audible range. Apparently I was wrong.

Graph 34.14 does not respond to my question.

your response is a killing phrase.