linuxaudio.org

On Monday 16 February 2009 09:05:08 Sampo Savolainen wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 13:03 +0100, hollunder@gmx.at 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@lists.linuxaudio.org

> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

ok, so i'm confused.  If you're saying that upsampling is generally a bad

thing why does one pay extra for it in  a product like this:

http://www.meridian.co.uk/product-model/g-series/g082-upsampling-compact...

player.aspx ?

--

Bearcat M. Şandor

Bearcat@feline-soul.net

Jabber: bearcat@feline-soul.net

MSN: bearcatsandor@hotmail.com

Yahoo: bearcatsandor

AIM: bearcatmsandor

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user