Wiebe, Clemens, list:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Wiebe Cazemier <wi...@halfgaar.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clemens Ladisch" <cladi...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Wiebe Cazemier" <wi...@halfgaar.net>
> > Cc: alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 May, 2013 9:38:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Alsa-user] Asus Xonar DX (AV200) dmix resampling
> >
> > > Now that high-end cards don't do this anymore, it seems to defeat
> > > the
> > > purpose to then put it in software.
> >
> > Modern cards don't do this anymore because *all* operating systems
> > already do software mixing.
>
> But don't they do this because cards don't hardware mix anymore?
>
Hmm chicken and egg how fun!
Another thing to think about is gapless playback. How well does this work
when a 44.1/16 song is followed by a 96/24 song? The usual functionality
is to mix the tail of one with the front of the other; I guess that means
downsampling the latter (or a serious application of magic).
>
> >
> > > I understand it's necessary for mixing sources, but doesn't one
> > > like
> > > to retain full quality when there is one source?
> >
> > This is a restriction of dmix; using one predetermined sample rate
> > avoids communicating between multiple instances. Modern desktops use
> > PulseAudio instead.
>
> "Can't.... use ... new ... technology..." :)
>
> I guess I have to give Pulse a try. Choosing the sample rate of the first
> stream is what would suit me. I don't care what music sounds like while I'm
> skyping, but when I'm just listening to music, I want original quality.
>
Wiebe please bear in mind that this is just my (perhaps valueless) opinion,
but Pulse will cause you pain and agony.
The /etc/pulse/daemon.conf seems to like the idea of a fixed sample rate
(looking at my computer, 44.1khz) and to want to resample to that. I have
in the past stumbled upon conversations about configuring pulse so it's
bit-perfect but for me the Thing That Works is to use a player like
guayadeque or quod libet or something + mpd that will talk directly to Alsa.
>
> >
> > Anyway, in what way does resampling from 192 to 48 kHz reduce
> > quality?
> > Are you a bat? ;-)
>
> While I agree that I find the whole HD audio stuff a bunch of marketing
> hype (CD quality is good enough for human hearing), I think it too bold of
> the subsystem to just downmix to 48 kHz, mostly because any resampling
> theoretically introduces aliasing artifacts.
Being somewhat nervous of accusations of trying to start a discussion
worthy only of an audio equipment enthusiast group (at best)....
I am not a bat either (in fact my ears aren't very young) but if I have the
choice between some super-processed CD pressing perhaps from a 5th
generation analogue copy vs. someone's effort to extract an analogue master
at 96/24, or something that was originally recorded at higher resolution, I
prefer to avoid the (possible) compression and gain limiting conversion to
16 bits and/or downsample, as well as the (possibly suspect) downsampling
on my laptop.
It also seems apparent that DACs that take a little extra care in the
analogue section tend to support 96/24 or higher anyway.
For what it's worth!
--
Chris Hermansen · clhermansen "at" gmail "dot" com
C'est ma façon de parler.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d
_______________________________________________
Alsa-user mailing list
Alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
