On Monday 16 February 2009 09:05:08 Sampo Savolainen wrote:> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 13:03 +0100, hollunder@xxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-userok, 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-disc-player.aspx ?-- Bearcat M. ŞandorBearcat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: bearcat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: bearcatsandor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: bearcatsandorAIM: bearcatmsandor _______________________________________________Linux-audio-user mailing listLinux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
