Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 - 11:17 pm

On Sunday 06 January 2013, at 04.38.01, "Len Ovens" wrote:
[...]

[...]

A sampler (software or hardware) is typically resampling everything on the fly
anyway, modulating the pitch in response to pitch bend events, LFOs, envelopes
etc. It's one of the most fundamental features of sampling as a synthesis
method. Traditionally, an instrument would only have one or a few samples per
octave, so resampling was required to even implement note pitch at all.

These multi-gigabyte piano and orchestral sound disks may not make much use of
that feature, but that's a special use case that came with live streaming from
disk and machines with gigabytes of RAM. I'd think even samplers built
specifically for this would still have the usual resampling features, and
should work with any output sample rate - but of course, you're not getting
any advantages from 48 kHz if you're still playing 44.1 kHz sample libraries
of that kind.

--
//David Olofson - Consultant, Developer, Artist, Open Source Advocate

.--- Games, examples, libraries, scripting, sound, music, graphics ---.
| http://consulting.olofson.net http://olofsonarcade.com |
'---------------------------------------------------------------------'
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Sun Jan 6, 11:54 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Ralph Bluecoat, (Mon Jan 7, 1:56 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 4:37 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Jan 7, 10:03 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Alf Haakon Lund, (Mon Jan 7, 5:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 9:34 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, David Olofson, (Sun Jan 6, 11:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 3:16 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Neil, (Sun Jan 6, 8:18 pm)