OK - I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of resampling. I was given a link here by a buddy that's trying to tell me upsampling his music makes it sound better. I can't seem to think of any possible reason why that would be true. He has a Creative e-mu 0404 and uses Patchmix to handle the audio setup.
As I learned it, you can reproduce (digitally) a perfect copy of a waveform by sampling at a rate greater than critical frequency (twice the bandwidth of your signal)
[1]. Audio runs from 20hz - 20khz so the minimum sample rate used for complete reproduction is 40khz
[2], and CD's are set at 44.1khz to provide for a little bit of fudge room, since you have to apply a low pass filter to achieve your original signal. You obtain an infinite number of duplicate waveforms (harmonics) in integer multiples.
Using this rudimentary, but no less valid information I can't see why upsampling everything to 96kHz is beneficial. You don't need to sample that high to begin with, and then taking a signal that's already 44.1kHz or 48kHz and then converting it it to 96kHz sounds silly to me, as you're not gaining anything (content wise).
From reading some of the other posts, it seems that Creative has some problems decoding non 48kHz sound on it's own, and so some people use software to match the sample rate before passing the signal into the card for playback.
But isn't it silly to think upsampling everything to 96kHz will make it sound better?
[1] Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem OR Whittaker-Nyquist-Kotelnikov-Shannon sampling theorem
[2] Nyquist Frequency (2w)