16 Feb
2009
16 Feb
'09
12:53 p.m.
On Monday 16 February 2009 09:05:08 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 13:03 +0100, hollunder(a)gmx.at
wrote:
ok, so i'm
confused. If you're saying that upsampling is generally a bad
thing why does one pay extra for it in a product like this:
http://www.meridian.co.uk/product-model/g-series/g082-upsampling-compact-di…
player.aspx ?
--
Bearcat M. Şandor
Bearcat(a)feline-soul.net
Jabber: bearcat(a)feline-soul.net
MSN: bearcatsandor(a)hotmail.com
Yahoo: bearcatsandor
AIM: bearcatmsandor
Glad it works for you.
But: Upsampling can't make it better(=closer to the original), you
can't magically get stuff that's not there (even if companies like
creative claim so).
Very true. But ..
If it sound better now than before something was
wrong before or you
like some resampling artifacts ;)
.. It's possible that the audio interface has a fixed (96kHz?) clock and
uses dubious methods of achieving non-even sampling rates like 44.1k. In
that scenario, the software upsampling done by alsa might be better than
the presumed bad method done at hw level.
Any sane soundcard (= not integrated or creative) wouldn't exhibit this
behaviour though. Proper interfaces have proper clocks.
Sampo
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user