On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:33 AM, jonetsu@email-addr-hidden <jonetsu@email-addr-hidden
> wrote:
>
> This "up-sample" as far as I understood from the course, does not exist
> in reality as far as the quality of audio is concerned. A
> demonstration can be easily made using Audacity and zooming up to see
> the actual sampling points of both files, the original and the
> "up-sampled": the file that has been resampled from lower sampling rate
> will not add anything at all but more sampling points on straight
> segments of the audio. It cannot add quality. It cannot create curves.
>
Your understanding is incorrect. Please watch this:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
If you have time (40mins to an hour), I'd also suggest you watch this):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
The meat of this one starts at 16:48 https://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ?t=16m48s
but the preamble is worth watching for other reasons too.
Out of say 15 tracks, there would be 4 that need higher quality
> sampling because they are acoustic instruments. But the 15 tracks,
> even the synths and synth drums, will take so many more megabytes of
> space, because the sampling rate is not set on a per track basis.
> Maybe sampling rates on a per-track basis does not make sense in FAWs
> in general.
>
your audio interface runs at one sample rate. all tracks not at the same SR
would have to be resampled. Not a good idea.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Nov 23 20:15:04 2015
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 23 2015 - 20:15:04 EET