8 May
2010
8 May
'10
3 p.m.
On Saturday, May 08, 2010 16:06:43 fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Fons, thanks for the clarification!
BTW, do you know some public hrefs to results of such or related kinds of
tests (I mean those which you can treat as more or less objective)? I'm
interested in psychoacoustic in a whole, but don't know whom to believe to in
this almost sold world :-)
P.S. You have moved the thread from LAU to LAD - so I'm follow
your decision.
Andrew
As for sample
rate changing - do I understand well, Fons' intention is to
use resampling in real time processing? If it so - will it be comparable
in quality with SRC offline "Best Sinc" processing? I mean, real-timing
can forces some compromises in quality (with all my respect to and
admire of multiple Fons' tools which I use widely!).
Zita-resampler uses the same 'sinc' algo as SRC, and the resample
application configures for the best quality which corresponds to
a 192 tap FIR. The differences are
* zita-resampler precomputes all filter coefficients and does not
have to interpolate them while processing. This makes it faster,
in particular for multichannel since (at least the last time I
looked) SRC repeats this interpolation for each channel.
* The SRC filter goes for full attenuation at FS/2 (FS is the lower
of the two sample rates) while zita-resampler has -60dB at that
point. This is a deliberate choice. Zita-resampler will reach
full attenuation of aliases at all frequencies where it matters,
at least when used at the normal sample rates (>= 44100). It
should not be used to resample to e.g. 32 kHz or lower.
Listening tests with 'expert' users have shown that none of them
have been able to hear the difference between the original, SRC,
and zita-resampler even at a *lower* quality setting.