[linux-audio-user] Sample Rate Conversions (was: Converting sample rate: failed...)

[R Parker]

Hey,

David, I support the right to share knowledge and
express opinion but I think you need to do a better
job of it. Claiming that Erik is wrong, puts the
impetus of proof on you. It's your responsibility to
provide direct qoutes with publication titles and page
numbers. A failure to demonstrate your arguments and
show test results becomes a knock against your
credibility.

Erik has made a siginificant contribution that many of
us need. I imagine alot of people have followed this
thread and would like it to either end, or resolve
with a positive and intellectually compelling tact.

David, I'm a satisfied user of Erik's code and will
continue happily using it. I imagine that statement in
your opinion is an admission of ignorance but I'll
happily live with that. If Erik improves his code with
or without your help all the better.

David, I read your posts knowing I'll learn something
and it seems obvious that both you and him are
talented. I think we're all better off for having both
of you participating and hope it stays that way.

Coffee Time.

ron

--- davidrclark at earthlink.net wrote:

> Was: Converting sample rate: failed...
> 
> Erik,
> 
> Regarding your recent post on this subject:
> 
> > Funnily enough the issue you see as a "serious
> misconception" I see
> > as a "significant advantage of libsamplerate over
> your converter". [0]
> 
> > [0] You claim that the highly localized behavior
> of the truncated
> >     windowed sinc is a bad thing. I claim that
> this localization is
> >     a good thing for converting a general digital
> audio signal because
> >     these signals are already highly localized (ie
> snare drum hit at 
> >     10.03 seconds from the start). From your
> description, your 
> >     converter spreads these highly localized
> events over the whole 
> >     of the output signal which I think is a bad
> thing.
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> This is absolute nonsense.  Your misconception is
> even more deeply
> rooted than I had thought.  You are obviously
> missing some theoretical
> background I had assumed you had.  If you had had
> this background, you
> probably wouldn't have written the rest of your
> post, in addition to
> not having posted this nonsense.
> 
> You mentioned an interest in certain characteristics
> of the resampling
> method I'm using.  Either do the analysis or do the
> literature research.
> I've already told you everything you need to know:
> FFT with and without
> overlap; overlap accomplished with raised cosine
> windows.  Only someone
> who is utterly clueless would insist on obtaining my
> code for measurements.
> (And only someone who is very immature would
> characterize this standard
> advice as "hot air" before they even saw it.)
> 
> Good luck,
> Dave.
> 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail