> This is very good question. We should make a decision. If we use 50Hz, we > can easily calculate frames per second, otherwise we have to translate > sampling rate to physical rate.. But it's the only good point which I see.
I am not sure how you'd translate between the two? To me, one option is to define the number of samples per frame (which is 1 for all commonly used formats), and then: physical rate = sampling rate / samples per frame Is the rate actually used for scheduling purposes? Because otherwise there's no need for something like "physical rate". > Also, the situation is very easy for GSM where the sampling rate is fixed, > but what about some variable rate compressions with different sampling > rate / physical rate ratio? Although variable rate compressions can be an issue, all formats that I can think of have a specific number of samples per frame (if you allow the fact that MPEG-1 layer I, II and III are different formats). Usually, a finite number of physical widths per frame translate into their corresponding bit rates. But MPEG-1 layer III seems to be another beast by only defining an average bit rate. Guilhem. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0002en _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
