Better in what sense? In audio only differencies that can be heard are relevant. Technical differencies such as bit depth or sampling rate which don't come out in double blind listening tests are irrelevant, just placebo effect *. Haven't we had this discussion already? The width of sinc function only shows itself in impulse-like signals which is very different from what kind of signals are present it music. As long as I listen to music instead of impulses I don't see the relevance of this. * 96 kHz is "unambiguously better" than 44.1 kHz, but 192 kHz is "unambiguously better" than 96 kHz, but 384 kHz is "unambiguously better" than 192 kHz, but 768 kHz is "unambiguously better" than 384 kHz, but 1.536 MHz is "unambiguously better" than 768 kHz, but… …infinite samplerate is enough so we gotta have that! Well, only differencies that can be heard are relevant so luckily we don't need infinite samplerate. Not even 96 kHz. People who really understand these things say that there is absolutely no benefits even theoretically above about 60 kHz samplerate and in practice (as demostrated by double blind listening tests) 44.1 kHz is enough. Nobody says you have to use brickwall filter with 44.1 kHz. You can use "causal" digital filters if you want. The material can of course be "pre-filtered". All you need is an all-pass-filter that delays the highest frequencies a bit. Some Japanese DACs don't have reconstruction filters at all! They output the music with a lot of ultrasound noise.