4 Jun
2007
4 Jun
'07
5:27 a.m.
Are there any advantages in using 88.2 KHz for recording and mixing
when target format is CD's one? Ardour/LADSPA are in use.
4 Jun
4 Jun
5:33 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 11:27 +0400, Andrew Gaydenko wrote:
Are there any advantages in using 88.2 KHz for
recording and mixing
when target format is CD's one? Ardour/LADSPA are in use.
It may be cheaper to downsample from 88.2 kHz - just use a brickwall
filter and then throw away every odd sample. I don't think that's reason
enough for using it though, downsampling is presumably a one-time job
that isn't all that urgent.
--ll
6:08 a.m.
======= On Monday 04 June 2007, Lars Luthman wrote: =======
...
It may be cheaper to downsample from 88.2 kHz - just
use a brickwall
filter and then throw away every odd sample. I don't think that's reason
enough for using it though, downsampling is presumably a one-time job
that isn't all that urgent.
--ll
======= On Monday 04 June 2007, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: =======
...
If you are using the secret rabbit code SINC based (or
any other
"correct" resampler) to do the resampling, then the only advantage
of 88k2 is that it uses slight less disk space.
When using crappy resamplers (ie linear resamplers, including the
one in secret rabbit code), they may be slightly less bad at doing
88k2 -> 44k1 than 96k -> 44k1.
HTH,
Erik
Lars, Erik, thanks!
I concluded, I can use 96K, SRC and forget about the issue.
Andrew
5:44 a.m.
Andrew Gaydenko wrote:
Are there any advantages in using 88.2 KHz for
recording and mixing
when target format is CD's one? Ardour/LADSPA are in use.
If you are using the secret rabbit code SINC based (or any other
"correct" resampler) to do the resampling, then the only advantage
of 88k2 is that it uses slight less disk space.
When using crappy resamplers (ie linear resamplers, including the
one in secret rabbit code), they may be slightly less bad at doing
88k2 -> 44k1 than 96k -> 44k1.
HTH,
Erik
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Visual SourceSafe? It would be safer to print out all your
code, run it through a shredder, and set it on fire."
http://www.wadhome.org/svn_vs_vss.txt
7:15 a.m.
New subject: 96, 88.2 or 44.1?
Following Andrew's question, are there any advantages in using 96 or
88.2KHz rather than 44.1KHz directly?
7:28 a.m.
New subject: 96, 88.2 or 44.1?
On 4 Jun 2007, at 10:13, joel silvestre wrote:
Following Andrew's question, are there any
advantages in using 96 or
88.2KHz rather than 44.1KHz directly?
Probably. You get a bit more frequency headroom eg. in filters, and
if you're recording at 96 you might get a bit more high frequencies
that the antialiasing filter in your AD converter would chop of. I've
no idea how much difference it makes in practice though.
- Steve
7:32 a.m.
New subject: 96, 88.2 or 44.1?
======= On Monday 04 June 2007, joel silvestre wrote: =======
Following Andrew's question, are there any
advantages in using 96 or
88.2KHz rather than 44.1KHz directly?
Nat saying about mathematics, I think, it is much simpler to make low pass
filtering in input ADC's chains for 88/96 rather at 44 case.
6396
days inactive
6396
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andrew Gaydenko -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
joel silvestre -
Lars Luthman -
Steve Harris