LawnGnome
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Posts
- 1,201
- Likes
- 14
Anyone else think this thread is just continuing due to some misconceptions b0dhi holds?
Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Top one is 5Khz, bottom is 8Khz. Not sure where those large notches are coming from, but it works fine on other frequencies I've tried. The other weird thing is my DAC all of a sudden developed a ringing at 96Khz today (you can see it on the top graph). I can't get a DC signal out of it, whereas yesterday I could. Weird. But yeah, apart from those two issues I'm happy with this upsampler. It retains decent square edges below 10Khz and keeps very smooth sine waves above that. The best of both worlds LawnGnome: Grow up. |
Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why are you so focused on finding an upsampler that produces nice square waves? when it distorts everything else? You are spending time to reduce the quality of the output, so you must have some misconception that this will help you in some way. Either that or you just want more distorted sound. |
Originally Posted by Hancoque /img/forum/go_quote.gif But why doesn't the resampler in Audition use linear interpolation if it is so much better? And why is a linear resampler generally labeled poor quality whereas other resamplers like SSRC or SRC "best sinc" are considered to be high quality? Explain that please. |
Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif "That theorem says that any signal which does not contain frequencies >= 22050 Hz can be reconstructed _perfectly_ from a time series sampled at 44100 Hz." Hancoque already made that point earlier in the thread. Music, though, contains harmonics above 22050Hz, and electronic music would contain infinite harmonics if it weren't bandwidth limited by the reproduction medium. If it wasn't clear in post #47, I decided on an upsampler that isnt linear. Let the thread die already. |
Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you wanted to distort the rest of the spectrum so you could try to eek out harmonics which are probably much much higher than your range of hearing? Makes great sense. |
It’s been determined that time delay differences of 15 microseconds between left and right ears are easily discernible by nearly anyone. That’s less than the time difference between two samples at 48kHz (about 20 microseconds). Using a single pulse, one microsecond in length as a source, some listeners can perceive time delay differences of as little as five microseconds between left and right. It is therefore, indicated that, in order to provide a system with exact accuracy concerning imaging and positioning, the individual samples should be less than five microseconds apart. At 96kHz (a popularly preferred sample rate) there is a 10.417-microsecond space between samples. At 192kHz sample rate there is a 5.208-microsecond space between samples. This reasoning suggests that a sample rate of 192kHz is probably a good choice. |
Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, ok. For everyone else, I thought this was interesting: - http://digitalproducer.digitalmedian...le.jsp?id=7408 |
Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif For everyone else... |
Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's a reason I said: I don't have time to sit here and educate someone with no tact, no knowledge and an overabundance of arrogance. Stop threadcrapping. |