On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 13:03 +0100, hollunder@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> 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@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Feb 16 20:15:02 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 16 2009 - 20:15:02 EET