On Wednesday 03 September 2008 09:39:37 am Carl-Erik Kopseng wrote:
> Looking at the
> not-to-well-documented lame library I (think) that Lame only support
> sample rates up to 48kHz, so I would need to convert the samplerate
> and bitrate through the use of an other library.
This is a limitation of the MPEG 1/2 standard, not of lame *per se*.
> Regarding the downsampling I would like to know if I would get any
> funny artifacts when downsampling 96kHz material to 44.1kHz (not even
> division). Would I be better of to convert to 48kHz for 96kHz
> material?
FWIW, I would think 48 kHz would be a better approach, as you'd be preserving
(marginally) better quality from the original 96 kHz source (not to mention
having to mess around with padding bits and other hackery that MPEG uses to
make 44.1 work).
Cheers!
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Chief Developer |
| | Paravel Systems |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Please try to limit the amount of "this room doesn't have any bazingas" |
| until you are told that those rooms are "punched out". Once punched |
| out, we have a right to complain about atrocities, missing bazingas, |
| and such. |
| -- N. Meyrowitz |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Sep 3 20:15:02 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 03 2008 - 20:15:02 EEST