On Tuesday 07 August 2007 11:25:20 Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:36:31AM +0300, Juuso Alasuutari wrote: > > Why did you resample to 48 kHz instead of 96 kHz? > > Three reasons: > > - It's a very common case. > > - It's a considerably more difficult one than upsampling to 96 kHz. > If you work out where the first aliased image ends up, then for > 44->48 most of it is in the audible range, while for 44->96 all > of it ends up above 22 kHz. > > - My web space is limited, and 96 kHz would double the files sizes ! > > > I'd imagine the differences would show up better that way, > > Considering the second point above, it's quite the inverse.
Alright, thanks for the correction! :) Juuso _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
