28 Sep
2004
28 Sep
'04
2:48 p.m.
Was: Converting sample rate: failed...
Erik,
Regarding your recent post on this subject:
Funnily enough the issue you see as a "serious
misconception" I see
as a "significant advantage of libsamplerate over your converter". [0]
[0] You claim that the highly localized behavior of
the truncated
windowed sinc is a bad thing. I claim that this localization is
a good thing for converting a general digital audio signal because
these signals are already highly localized (ie snare drum hit at
10.03 seconds from the start). From your description, your
converter spreads these highly localized events over the whole
of the output signal which I think is a bad thing.
-----------------------------------------
This is absolute nonsense. Your misconception is even more deeply
rooted than I had thought. You are obviously missing some theoretical
background I had assumed you had. If you had had this background, you
probably wouldn't have written the rest of your post, in addition to
not having posted this nonsense.
You mentioned an interest in certain characteristics of the resampling
method I'm using. Either do the analysis or do the literature research.
I've already told you everything you need to know: FFT with and without
overlap; overlap accomplished with raised cosine windows. Only someone
who is utterly clueless would insist on obtaining my code for measurements.
(And only someone who is very immature would characterize this standard
advice as "hot air" before they even saw it.)
Good luck,
Dave.
29 Sep
29 Sep
7:58 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Sample Rate Conversions (was: Converting sample rate: failed...)
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:30:59 -0700
davidrclark(a)earthlink.net wrote:
Was: Converting sample rate: failed...
Yet more hot air.
I'm not interested in pursuing this further. I'd rather be
coding.
People can find the best freely available sample rate converter
here:
http://www.mega-nerd.com/SRC/
and they can evaluate it for themselves. Hundreds of people and
organisations have already done so. Some have paid good money
for the commercial use license.
Alternatively they wait and hope for David to release his Super
Hi-fidelity Infinite Transform-based converter. Its due to be
released on the same day as his perpetual motion apparatus and
his anti gravity device.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"What lawyers call 'intellectual property' is -- as every Latin student
knows -- no more than theft from the public domain."
-- Andy Mueller-Maguhn, newly elected ICANN board member for Europe.
8:46 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Sample Rate Conversions (was: Converting sample rate: failed...)
On Sep 29, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:30:59 -0700
davidrclark(a)earthlink.net wrote:
these will all be spectacular. i can't wait!
_______________________________________________________
Jonathan Segel -- MAGNETIC -- PO Box 460816 S.F. CA. 94146-0816
http://www.MagneticMotorworks.com
Was: Converting sample rate: failed...
Alternatively they wait and hope for David to release his Super
Hi-fidelity Infinite Transform-based converter. Its due to be
released on the same day as his perpetual motion apparatus and
his anti gravity device. 
1:30 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Sample Rate Conversions
Greetings:
Apart from the uncivil exchange, this thread should have been moved to
LAD anyway. Many developers there do *not* subscribe to LAU, and the
possibility of reading their input is nixed if the thread stays only here.
At a certain point technical discussions are of little importance to
the user. IMO, this thread has passed that point.
Re: uncivil posts: They don't really belong here or on LAD.
Best regards,
dp
11:17 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Sample Rate Conversions (was: Converting sample rate: failed...)
Hey,
David, I support the right to share knowledge and
express opinion but I think you need to do a better
job of it. Claiming that Erik is wrong, puts the
impetus of proof on you. It's your responsibility to
provide direct qoutes with publication titles and page
numbers. A failure to demonstrate your arguments and
show test results becomes a knock against your
credibility.
Erik has made a siginificant contribution that many of
us need. I imagine alot of people have followed this
thread and would like it to either end, or resolve
with a positive and intellectually compelling tact.
David, I'm a satisfied user of Erik's code and will
continue happily using it. I imagine that statement in
your opinion is an admission of ignorance but I'll
happily live with that. If Erik improves his code with
or without your help all the better.
David, I read your posts knowing I'll learn something
and it seems obvious that both you and him are
talented. I think we're all better off for having both
of you participating and hope it stays that way.
Coffee Time.
ron
--- davidrclark(a)earthlink.net wrote:
Was: Converting sample rate: failed...
Erik,
Regarding your recent post on this subject:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Funnily enough the issue you see as a
"serious
misconception" I see
as a "significant advantage of libsamplerate
over
your converter". [0]
[0] You claim that the highly localized behavior
of the truncated
windowed sinc is a bad thing. I claim that
this localization is
a good thing for converting a general digital
audio signal because
these signals are already highly localized
(ie
snare drum hit at
10.03 seconds from the start). From your
description, your
converter spreads these highly localized
events over the whole
of the output signal which I think is a bad
thing.
-----------------------------------------
This is absolute nonsense. Your misconception is
even more deeply
rooted than I had thought. You are obviously
missing some theoretical
background I had assumed you had. If you had had
this background, you
probably wouldn't have written the rest of your
post, in addition to
not having posted this nonsense.
You mentioned an interest in certain characteristics
of the resampling
method I'm using. Either do the analysis or do the
literature research.
I've already told you everything you need to know:
FFT with and without
overlap; overlap accomplished with raised cosine
windows. Only someone
who is utterly clueless would insist on obtaining my
code for measurements.
(And only someone who is very immature would
characterize this standard
advice as "hot air" before they even saw it.)
Good luck,
Dave.
8:36 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Sample Rate Conversions (was: Converting sample rate: failed...)
Last Wednesday 29 September 2004 13:59, R Parker was like:
David, I support the right to share knowledge and
express opinion but I think you need to do a better
job of it. Claiming that Erik is wrong, puts the
impetus of proof on you. It's your responsibility to
provide direct qoutes with publication titles and page
numbers. A failure to demonstrate your arguments and
show test results becomes a knock against your
credibility.
Erik has made a siginificant contribution that many of
us need. I imagine alot of people have followed this
thread and would like it to either end, or resolve
with a positive and intellectually compelling tact.
David, I'm a satisfied user of Erik's code and will
continue happily using it. I imagine that statement in
your opinion is an admission of ignorance but I'll
happily live with that. If Erik improves his code with
or without your help all the better.
David, I read your posts knowing I'll learn something
and it seems obvious that both you and him are
talented. I think we're all better off for having both
of you participating and hope it stays that way.
Well put, thanks Ron.
Such is the nature of the discussion, that not being much of a techie, I'd
blurred over it. I thank Erik every time I convert a soundfile. In fact I'm
really grateful to you all and that's the thought I'd like to hold.
cheers
tim hall
9:09 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Sample Rate Conversions (was: Converting sample rate: failed...)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:19:08PM +0100, tim hall wrote:
Last Wednesday 29 September 2004 13:59, R Parker was
like:
Whether Erik is right or wrong, his code is what we have at our
disposal. In this community the "show us the code" mantra trumps all.
If we can't use it and can't read it, or at least have the option to
read it, it is not of value to us. That goes regardless of whatever
theoretical or actual advantage some other approach may have.
No matter how "wrong" Erik's approach might be from anyone else's
perspective, I LIKE the sounds I get by using libsamplerate for pitch
shifting (via ecasound). For my purposes any perceived or actual
inaccuracy just don't enter into it.
If David has a contribution to make to Erik's code to help it improve
for those who do desire accuracy, I'm all for it. But, if he isn't going
to do that he should stop throwing stones.
-Eric Rz.
David, I support the right to share knowledge
and
express opinion but I think you need to do a better
job of it. Claiming that Erik is wrong, puts the
impetus of proof on you. It's your responsibility to
provide direct qoutes with publication titles and page
numbers. A failure to demonstrate your arguments and
show test results becomes a knock against your
credibility.
Erik has made a siginificant contribution that many of
us need. I imagine alot of people have followed this
thread and would like it to either end, or resolve
with a positive and intellectually compelling tact.
David, I'm a satisfied user of Erik's code and will
continue happily using it. I imagine that statement in
your opinion is an admission of ignorance but I'll
happily live with that. If Erik improves his code with
or without your help all the better.
David, I read your posts knowing I'll learn something
and it seems obvious that both you and him are
talented. I think we're all better off for having both
of you participating and hope it stays that way.
Well put, thanks Ron.
Such is the nature of the discussion, that not being much of a techie, I'd
blurred over it. I thank Erik every time I convert a soundfile. In fact I'm
really grateful to you all and that's the thought I'd like to hold.
7420
days inactive
7421
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
6 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Dave Phillips -
davidrclark＠earthlink.net -
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
jonathan segel -
R Parker -
tim hall