7 Aug
2007
7 Aug
'07
7:08 a.m.
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 11:25:20 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:36:31AM +0300, Juuso
Alasuutari wrote:
Alright, thanks for the correction! :)
Juuso
Why did you resample to 48 kHz instead of 96 kHz?
Three reasons:
- It's a very common case.
- It's a considerably more difficult one than upsampling to 96 kHz.
If you work out where the first aliased image ends up, then for
44->48 most of it is in the audible range, while for 44->96 all
of it ends up above 22 kHz.
- My web space is limited, and 96 kHz would double the files sizes !
I'd imagine the differences would show up
better that way,
Considering the second point above, it's quite the inverse.