23 Nov
2015
23 Nov
'15
10:02 p.m.
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:46:55 -0800 (PST)
Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, jonetsu(a)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
there. This is quite obvious with pictures. Same with sampling.
Attached is a quick drawing to illustrate. It is coarse as there are
very few sampling points, but the principle applies. The limit is the
finesse of the source material. If there are extremely minute changes
in the wave then the sampling must be done at an according rate if one
wishes to preserve the original as much as possible. Parameters of
interpolation can be applied, but how would you interpolate a 4-bit
Mona Lisa to show the subtleties of Da Vinci's painting ?
Now, I would like to know that in reality things are not like that and
that high, true-to-orignal, quality can be made from low quality sources
so I remain open to all comments and ideas.
