Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Sample Rate / Resolution question
From: Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia_AT_nic.funet.fi)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 12:59:30 EET
>From: David Matthews <dgm4+@pitt.edu>
>
>I'm going to risk getting flamed for this (as sample rate is something of a
>religious issue for some people), but I would personally always rather work
>at 44.1 and avoid sample-rate conversion if at all possible. The only
[ ... ]
>artifacts. Thus, my preference is for 24-bit, 44.1 kHz audio. Note that
>this is just my personal preference and a lot of people will disagree with
>me.
I already forgot the point of this discussion...
It is well ok to work with 44100 Hz if that sounds good enough
(it does in HiFi use), is space efficient, and if it saves
the trouble of converting to 44100 Hz for CD.
SB Live seems to resample from 48000 (internal and A/D SR) to
44100 (application SR). If that causes problems then one could
choose to use 48000. But in my opinion, the end SR 44100 dominates
the selection because it saves the trouble of searching a good
software resampler.
Because the sounds sampled 44100 will be good enough for me (even if
resampled to 96000), I will switch from 44100 only when the following
happens:
-CD/DVD players will play 48000 Hz music
-DVD-R becomes as cheap as CD-R is now; DVD-R/CD-R space ratio
seems to fit to the increased space needs (I may use 48000/24-bit
only if the price stays at relatively expensive levels)
-DVD-R is must because CD-R is already too small for storing
44100/16-bit audio
-If a surround sound software cannot handle the 44100 audio -- I mean,
if ever I have means for making my own surround sound mixes: no audio
software I use offers that possibility (perhaps I just resample from
44100 to 48000 as a last stage)
So, I don't see big reasons for the switch before DVD-R is available
for the cost-efficient price with large enough storage space.
Best regards,
Juhana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 12:52:44 EET