On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:36:31AM +0300, Juuso Alasuutari wrote:
> Why did you resample to 48 kHz instead of 96 kHz?
Three reasons:
- It's a very common case.
- It's a considerably more difficult one than upsampling to 96 kHz.
If you work out where the first aliased image ends up, then for
44->48 most of it is in the audible range, while for 44->96 all
of it ends up above 22 kHz.
- My web space is limited, and 96 kHz would double the files sizes !
> I'd imagine the differences would show up better that way,
Considering the second point above, it's quite the inverse.
Ciao,
-- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo ! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-devReceived on Tue Aug 7 12:15:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 07 2007 - 12:15:02 EEST