[LAU] Mono tracks to mono or stereo bus ? And sampling rate

Len Ovens len at ovenwerks.net
Mon Nov 23 22:28:01 UTC 2015

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, jonetsu at teksavvy.com wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:46:55 -0800 (PST)
> Len Ovens <len at ovenwerks.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, jonetsu at teksavvy.com wrote:
>>> Hmmmm. Not sure about intuition.  A sine wave with 16 sampled points
>>> will end up like a linked list of edges.  Saving that to file and
>>> resampling at 128 will only add points to the straight lines.  It
>>> will not create curves as per the original.  It cannot.  How would
>>> it know it was a sine wave and not a guitar tone when it had to
>>> process basically what was a robotic tone ?
>> Very simplified.... Filtering. Really, watch the video a xiph.org
>> before you say any more. They compare (on analog equipment) input and
>> output wave forms at 44.1k.
> I have replied an hour ago, but the reply did not make it yet.  Maybe
> due to the 48K attachment.  So let's try with a low-res one :)
> I watched the video.  I still remain with what I said, really. As a
> parallel, a picture - parallel also made in this video - if you take a
> very low resolution of the Mona Lisa it will not be possible to
> reconstruct the quality of the original.  The information is not

Bad parallel already. "very low" and "beyond the eyes ability to see" are 
two different things. 24khz - whatever the lowpass filter throws at things 
is still higher than the ear can hear. It is not "very low res", It is 
higher than tape or vinyl.

In order for a picture to make sense it must be viewed from enough 
distance for the whole to be seen at a time. Most art galleries with 
valuable paintings will not even let you closer than beyond arms reach 
anyway. Being able to see something with a microscope does not prove 
anything as at any magnification the context for our eyes to see a picture 
is lost.

Being able to use a scope to see that bandwidth is limmited to what we can 
hear is also out of context... we use our ears to listen, not a scope.

Anyway, it hardly matters, each is free to record at whatever sample rate 
they wish. If recording at 48000 makes me happy, Great! and if recording 
at 96000 makes you happy, Great!

I am not in any way arguing for low res anything, but rather appropriate 
resolution for the use. Higher than detectable with the intended receiver. 
Not ultra high, just cause it's possible (and sellable/profitable).

Len Ovens

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list